Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arena Rock Recording Co.


 * 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 (non-admin closure), consensus is to keep or improve (keep) Fr33kman talk  APW 19:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Arena Rock Recording Co.

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This company appears to be mainly a resale operation. I searched for news articles etc. to determine notability and found nothing that would indicate this is a notable subject or an article that could be expanded per Wikipedia guidelines even to stub status. The companies commercial link has been added to several articles as an external link, also in violation of guidelines for article content WP:EL Awotter (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.   —Katr67 (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep It's a circular argument, but criterion five of WP:BAND, the notability guideline for musicians, says: "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." So it appears that since ARRC has been around for a few years and many of the artists on the label are notable, the label itself is notable. In other words, if the label is used to confer notability on artists, then perhaps it is notable. On the other hand, pending the discovery of some good sources, this probably wouldn't pass the notability guidelines for companies. It's a toss-up, but I'd lean towards keep, especially because many articles link to it. A Google News search looks like it mentions bands on the label but not much on the label itself, I don't have time to check further today. Katr67 (talk) 23:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for the reply Katr67, I've checked at least five (randomly) of the artists groups mentioned and in only one case (so far) did they appear to have any original producing/distribution connection to any released music material. That article didn't cite any references so I'm still skeptical that the person adding the material and links isn't doing so to drive traffic to his/her commercial site via external links, but if the article can be legitimately expanded w/out the kruft that's fine and it should stay.Awotter (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  13:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, barely. I've added a few sources, and there were a lot more (about 66 hits searching US newspapers) that show they are/were involved with many of the bands listed in the article. Its minimal coverage of the label. But, Willamette Week has a fair amount of coverage, but most is in the form of editorials. Now these do count towards notability (from a WP:RS, independent of the subject, substantial coverage), but as editorials the use of info will be limited per WP:RS, so I'm not sure how many can be worked into the article. Aboutmovies (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2008 (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.