Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adorno 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   delete. No evidence of notability for this record label, the one argument for keep is based on special pleading, not policy. Fences &amp;  Windows  00:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Adorno Records

 * – (View AfD (View log  •  AfD statistics)

A Google search turns up exactly 10 hits, none of which gives any significant coverage of this label whatsoever. The article author has attempted to add sources, but they are only mentions such as "Rock Ness Monsters on Adorno Recors", for example. Therefore I am of the opinion that this article fails WP:GNG and WP:RS, as well as WP:V ArcAngel (talk) 05:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Delete per nom. I can find no significant coverage for this label in reliable sources; does not satisfy WP:GNG.  Gongshow  Talk 07:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  —  Gongshow  Talk 07:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep - I wrote this article and would like to justify why I don't think it deserves deletion:
 * the articles I cited about releases on the label (through archival at thefreelibrary.com) were originally published in the Daily Record (which does not maintain its own online archive after a set amount of time). The Daily Record is the largest national newspaper in Scotland with a readership in excess of 2 million (a third of the population of Scotland). I don't understand why this isn't considered a good and primary source considering the permalink available at thefreelibrary.com. Further, the articles cited specifically were about releases on the label (and the first included quotes from the label);
 * the CDs and records themselves - that they actually exist and sold well (every release has been 1,000+ which in Scottish indie terms is large);
 * lots of national radio coverage (in addition to airplay of songs) including interviews with the label on BBC Radio One, XFM, Radio Scotland etc. of which MP3s exist;
 * section about the label in the report for Government by Scottish Enterprise: Mapping the Music Industry in Scotland, Williamson, J., Cloonan, M. and Frith, S.;
 * section about the label in the most recent version of the book: The Great Scots Musicography - the complete guide to Scotland's music makers, M. C. Strong;
 * lots of newspaper / magazine / media articles in written press (albeit unfortunately not internet archived);
 * listings in online retailers such as Amazon and HMV;
 * there are several other directly comparable Scottish record labels with Wikipedia pages that haven't been as successful as Adorno Records (smaller catalogue / less sales / less impact), also with less / without cited sources, and with less content than I provided in this page;
 * the label is highly regarded in both the underground scene and industry in Scotland and I think it is therefore notable enough to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia;
 * as the label is on hiatus since the end of 2005, there hasn't been a lot written about it since then and this goes against it in Google searches, but doesn't make it any less valid from an encyclopedic historical POV surely.

In all I don't really understand why this page's validity is being challenged in a real sense. I didn't understand Wikipedia to discriminate against things which exist mainly in an offline world but it appears to be the case by implication (the record label has only ever released physical releases). If you tell me what needs amending and with what I will do that, surely a better alternative? Pr78 (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC) — Pr78 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The problem is that there is no significant coverage of the label itself. Most of the sources I found only had passing mentions of the label - that is not enough to pass the notability standards of Wikipedia.  If you say 1,000 units is large in the indie sense, in the general sense it is really insignificant.  Listings on online retail sites isn't an indication of notabilty - it's just an indication of sales.  If there are other Scottish labels that are less notable than Adorno that have pages, those articles could be looked at and challenged if need be.  The issue with this article is getting primary sources that cover the label and not the artists on the label - if those could be found and added, it would help. ArcAngel (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - in context though, the top ten of the official Scottish charts is normally less or around that mark. I can't find an archive anywhere though of previous Scottish charts. As I understand it also, it doesn't have to be international impact for inclusion on Wikipedia but national (ie Scotland) will do, yes? Pr78 (talk) 09:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:CORP. Eusebeus (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - In addition to my previous post. A Google search on "Adorno Records" (with quotation marks) selecting UK only returns 50 hits including media (Daily Record, Evening Telegraph, BBC etc) and industry organisations (Scottish Music Centre, NEMIS). Same search with quotations on Google but not selecting UK only has 589 hits - looking down page one, the majority of which are referencing the label (as opposed to the philosopher of which some nearer the top are about) Pr78 (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC) — Pr78 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Delay until sources are added - WP:CORP says Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability. It appears that this company has very little international coverage, true, but if the claims by PR78 above are correct, then there is strong national (Scottish) coverage.  However, the article does not cite any Scottish newspapers; indeed it does not cite any secondary sources and only includes a small list of official websites for various acts (not even a website for the label).  At this stage, the lack of sources is the problem, not the notability or otherwise.  I suggest delaying this AfD until published reliable secondary sources are cited.  If WP:N fails after that, relist.  --Jubilee♫ clipman  01:02, 13 December 2009 (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.