Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ad Noiseam (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. Trending to keep.  Sandstein  22:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Ad Noiseam
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article topic lacks in-depth, significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) The closest it got was listings and a brief description in a custom Google search of reliable music sources—not nearly enough for a full article. The last AfD said to use sources from the frwp article: that would be a dead article from Igloo magazine (unclear reliability) and an interview from a patently unreliable source. Someone also mentioned the number of people on the roster—few are actually notable and most are redlinks or links to unrelated pages. All in all, the source coverage just isn't here. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 16:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  czar  16:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC) Delete - As User:Czar has said, article has no independent sources, as the only one has fallen to WP:Link Rot, and as such I am of the opinion it should be deleted.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm tentatively saying keep. We tend to keep record label articles if the label has multiple independently notable bands, and I've found at least one that passes that bar so far, Dälek. I'm going to look into the others and see what I can find. —Torchiest talkedits 13:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep at best for now and the only other option I would say is to Draft and Userfy but it seems this article may be notable enough to be accepted, even if it's actually questionable for the sources. It may be fitting to say this is not as serious for deletion as compared to other articles. SwisterTwister   talk  06:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Since we're at the three week mark and in the absence of evidence otherwise, we have insufficient policy-backed rationale to keep this article. It's not just that the sourcing is questionable—even if it wasn't, there is not nearly enough sourcing to write an article (the point of the general notability guideline) and there is no claim to pass the corp guidelines.  czar  14:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , did you find anything else? czar  13:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've found enough reliable sources to create an article for another group on the label, Drumcorps. Still looking for more. —Torchiest talkedits 15:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Scorn is another group that's independently notable, so that's at least three. —Torchiest talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 15:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Raoul Sinier is also notable on his own. I'm pretty confident there must be others at this point, so I'm feeling more comfortable with my keep. —<B>Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 15:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, in light of the work put forth by Torchiest. Now appears to pass the notability requirements for labels. Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 16:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , what notability requirement for labels are you referencing? My understanding is that there is none and that all the keep votes above are despite having no sources on the label itself (and notability is not inherited...) czar  18:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The one source in the article looks good. One of the external links is a second interview with the label's founder. Here's a third interview with the founder. Here's a brief profile of the label. Here's a fourth interview with the founder. —<B>Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 20:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But those aren't reliable sources—the two interviews are coming from sites of no reputation, and I'm unable to find any proof that Pietro Da Sacco's Igloo mag has any sort of standing as more than a hobbyist site. And the major point of this thread is that there is no "record label notability guideline", only CORP and the GNG. czar  00:09, 6 March 2016 (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.