Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bit Riot 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. The article was nominated for deletion because of concerns about notability. None of the keep votes express a policy-based rationale for keeping the article. Notability has not been established per WP:GNG. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 23:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Bit Riot Records

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Perhaps someone who is better at finding sources for popular culture can find some secondary reliable sources for this label, but I can only find articles about artists which happen to mention Bit Riot in passing as their label or the label on which their latest release will be issued. I can't find anything about the label itself and while they have some talent who may be notable, notability is not inherited. TransporterMan ( TALK ) 19:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete without prejudice unless we can find some actual third-party coverage of the label itself - David Gerard (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Isn't having notable artists and successful releases what makes a label notable?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we still have no actual sources for this article concerning the label itself. Hence my "delete" being "without prejudice" - David Gerard (talk) 09:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am voting keep based on artists and releases.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Record labels coming up for deletion are difficult to defend, because they aren't usually "sexy" unless talking about truly legendary labels such as Motown, Sun, or Gennett. The artists get all the press and credit, but those who study the industry know how important record labels have been (and continue to be, though to a lesser extent) on musical culture and development.  A record company will properly divert attention to the product, and not to itself, therefore the GNG can be difficult to meet even for a successful independent.  WP:CORP isn't really a good fit for record labels, because they are in the business of producing and promoting "art", not a typical consumer good.  The best case for keeping a record label such as this is found in WP:MUSIC.  An artist is considered inherently notable if they have signed to "a label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of many notable musicians."  Therefore it stands to reason that a label that has many notable artists signed to it is inherently notable.  I've been borrowing from him, but I'm going to quote  directly here because he put it better than I can:  "This is not circular and does not violate WP:NOTINHERITED, as is often claimed; the notability of the artist is not based upon whether or not the label has an article, although this is sometimes used as a lazy shorthand. There are many labels without articles that fit these criteria. Much as we do with artists who are members of more than one clearly notable band but who are not themselves the subject of extensive news coverage, I think it is sensible to do the same with labels."


 * This label has three clearly notable artists signed to it, and has an established history of 7 years. Now, I have seen a record company or even an independent editor create articles about a record company, and separate articles about its artists, and then using one to support the other's notability is  a clear violation of NOTINHERIT.  However, two of the bands articles were created and developed by editors who have not worked on this article, and the other has had multiple editors contributing to it, and is the most highly notable of these bands, clearly having established notability regardless of WP:BAND #5.  Articles such as this are important to keep, as the label has influenced our musical legacy.  Since there are verifiable facts which demonstrate influence on the music world, this article and those like it are important to keep as providing valuable, encyclopedic information.    78.26   (His Wiki's Voice) 18:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * If we can find some third-party sources that are actually about the label (not just mentioning the name in passing), I'll change my comment to "keep" - David Gerard (talk) 11:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I question the claim of three clearly notable artist. Only one seems clear and Bit Riot was only a minor label for them, rereleasing in a different region. Even if all were notable it is not enough for bands for WP:MUSIC#5, let alone for this business to inherit notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  07:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 21:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Wikipedia is better off with this piece than without it as a source of in-links. Carrite (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Business lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Not notable. Notability is not inherited. Notable artists do not make a business notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:21, 14 July 2014 (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.