Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afternoon Records (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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mottezen (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC) AfDs for this article:

Afternoon Records

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NORG. It's notability cannot be inherited from working with some notable artists and having a notable parent company. Only mentioned in passing in local newspaper. Last AfD had no participants, but the soft delete ruling was immediately challenged. Mottezen (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - this was the source linked in the undelete request. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a local source, so it fails WP:AUD. Mottezen (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as challenger of the soft delete. The roster list has enough noteworthy names, in my estimation, to meet WP:MUSIC's sense of one of the more important indie labels. The Minnesota Daily article is substantial, though the publication is from a university; there's also a Billboard piece from 2009 and MPR . Since this is a Warner subsidiary, even in the worst case, we would not want a redlink here, but rather a merge to a better parent article. Chubbles (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear, none of these sources establish the company's notability. The MPR source fails WP:AUD, just like the Minnesota Daily. The billboard article was written by the President of the company, and is therefore a WP:PRIMARY source.
 * The noteworthiness of names on its roster list is irrelevant because notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. And if it can't even meet WP:NORG, it certainly doesn't "meet WP:MUSIC's sense of one of the more important indie labels".
 * As for a merger with Warner, I don't think it would be useful. None of this text is noteworthy enough to make it to that page, and an unexplained redirect to a company mostly know for its film studio will lead to confusion. Mottezen (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't, at all, see the link between NORG and NMUSIC. What are you judging NMUSIC#5 by?  In fact, it demonstrates that a record label is indeed known for its artistic output.  What makes a record label notable?  A record label becomes notable when its output influences art and culture, by genre or geography, per COMMONSENSE.  Therefore a record label does not inherit notability because of it's notable artists, but because a roster of notable artists are a strong indication of its influence on culture and art.  On the other hand, I'm not sure this is a Warner subsidiary.  They have a distribution deal, but so do a lot of other labels.  To me, this is a case where notability is not inherited by its association with a notable distribution channel.
 * Analyzing the sources put forth by Chubbles, MPR passes AUD with flying colors, I rather flummoxed anyone would think statewise public radio is only local coverage. I agree that the Billboard piece (usually an excellent source) is not independent coverage.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 14:53, 9 March 2021 (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.