Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aarght Records


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Aarght Records

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Not notable Australian local specialist punk record label, now defunct. Fails WP:GNG; WP:ORG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Business,  and Australia. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete could not find indepth coverage to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep The Vice article is half ok, the other half is an interview. I also found This.Zeddedm (talk) 02:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The coverage's enough to scrape by along with enough artists to suggest importance via WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Based on the Vice article mentioned and the label's roster. The label's releases get mentioned in Maximum Rocknroll a lot too. Jimmyjrg (talk) 23:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep based on 4meter4's finding of reference in specialist encyclopedia. Delete This is a company therefore the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP rather than NMUSIC which only applies to artists, bands, albums, and songs. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, etc - these references fail ORGIND.
 * This from somethingyousaid.com arguably fails as a reliable source as blogs are considered self-published. Additionally, it is a transcript of an interview with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
 * This from Vice Media also appears to be based on an interview and information provided to the journalist and is focused on Rich Stanley rather than the topic company. For me it does not contain enough in-depth information on the company nor does it contain sufficient opinion/analysis/investigation/etc that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the company.
 * This, this and this either contain information about an album or information about a gig with no in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
 * This from Beat doesn't even mention the company and has no information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
 * This next from Beat mentioned by Zeddedm above has two mentions-in-passing of the company and provides information about the topic company's annual music show. Fails CORPDEPTH
 * We need to see a reference where the journalist provides their own "Independent Content" about the company and it needs to be in-depth. Nothing so far meets NCORP criteria.  HighKing++ 13:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. In addition to the significant coverage in Vice Media and Beat, there is significant coverage of Aarght Records in . If a specialist encyclopedia is covering this topic, we should too per WP:5P1.4meter4 (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment never seen a better illustration for why WP:CORP is not the right yardstick for labels. 4meter4's discovery of an encyclopedia article about this label indicates that we, an encyclopedia, should have an article about it. Chubbles (talk) 05:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I totally agree although I'm also not sure what notability criteria you'd want to include for labels.  HighKing++ 11:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Woah there, The ISBN of The Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop Edition 2 is actually 978-0995385603 - and it's a 544-page book about the Australian music scene (a relatively esoteric one, at that) that's been titled as such - it's a naming conceit, not Britannica or anything. Just to get the 'record' straight... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s not an accurate assessment. You are correct that it isn’t Britannica (which is a general encyclopedia). However, it is an academic reference work that is structured, researched, and referenced in the way that specialized encyclopedias are structured (and by a notable academic in the field; we even have a wiki page Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop on this work), . In fact, that’s what it is, a specialized encyclopedia. WP:5P1 states, “ Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias.” Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.