Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albany 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 12:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Albany Records

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I can't find significant coverage for this record label. Joe Chill (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- Joe Chill (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - It is certainly notable in Albany, New York, where I live, and has produced CDs by Albany Symphony Orchestra and live shows at the Saratoga Performing Arts Center. Peter Kermani is a big socialite here in Upstate New York, but not notable by himself.  I'm not sure whether there's notabilty nationally.  In any case, this stub needs a lot of work.  Please give me and the WikiProject:Capital District a few days to attempt to rescue it. If not, then it goes. Bearian (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This quick search of the NY Times archives shows several instances in which music CD's released by Albany Records gets mentioned in this highly reliable newspaper of immenent importance, and at least one arts section article here that mentions "A few -- Albany Records, GM Recordings, Bridge Records and New World Records -- have staked out a commercially unviable corner of the repertory, contemporary music and particularly American contemporary music, and developed notably adventurous catalogues and telling histories." I think this quick little search adds enough notability that it should stay. Being a terrible article in need of work doesnt mean its not notable. Just makes it a crappy article for now.Camelbinky (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Are any of those significant coverage by reliable third party sources? What you've listed as your killer source is basically trivial coverage and noted by WP:Notability as such. It is a name drop and that doesn't cut it for notability. The search you've linked to is incredibly misleading as you haven't searched with quotes and there are all kinds of results mixed in there that simply mention albany, music and records. Here is a better search  and I don't see anything in there that isn't trivial coverage.--Crossmr (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you read the ENTIRE NY Times article that I provided? Several quotes from the owner of Albany Records is in that article, and I wouldnt say its trivial coverage. And since when is the NY Times NOT a reliable third party source?Camelbinky (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a reliable third party source, I asked if it provided significant coverage. If there was far more content in the source, you should have stated that. You linked to a search which basically showed nothing and contained tons of irrelevant results. the quote you provided from the article was trivial and you didn't indicate there was more. While that article provides some print, the article isn't about Albany Records and its only mentioned in relation to a larger issue and there are some quotes from a couple people who work there. Has anyone ever written an article about Albany Record or are they only ever mentioned in relation to a CD release or sound bites on other issues?--Crossmr (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Dont know and I have better things to work on right now. It is enough to keep the article however, and I dont have to give more than a snippet when talking, if you want to comment on things like this do your homework, I linked directly to the article and I assumed people reading this would have read the ENTIRE article before commenting. The fact that their releases get mentioned in the NY Times (emphasis on what newspaper I'm talking about, this isnt a podunk newspaper from the midwest, this is THE NY TIMES talking about releases from an independent record label from a small city well outside their regional coverage area) and being mentioned even in this one article I have linked is more than enough to save the article so MORE RESEARCH can be done at a person's leisure instead of such a deadline on trying to save it. To save an article it shouldnt be required that the article becomes complete. Its been shown to be notable. We've done our job as required for this AfD.Camelbinky (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

addendum- Here is a third party website talking about the AMC giving the company an award. Here is them listed on a "scholarly resource of recordings". And yes, when doing searches at the NY Times archives or Google it IS pretty much common sense that you need to put "Albany Records music" instead of just "Albany Records", since as a US state capital for ~250 years and since it has existed for 400 years there are lots of sites talking about "records" in or about "Albany"; so yes a search for the words "Albany Records" like you have done is going to show alot of red herrings and swamp any mentions of the recording company. A search should always be tailored to get you the most correct responses, not the most general.Camelbinky (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * delete based on current sources provided I don't see anything that indicates significant coverage by reliable third party sources.--Crossmr (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The coverage is there in the links provided by Camelbinky. Award-winning label, etc. Plvekamp (talk) 02:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per meeting notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:44, 25 January 2010 (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.