Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carrot Top 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 delete.  MBisanz  talk 23:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Carrot Top Records
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The references are mainly primary ones off the label's website or store site, and the secondaries are namedrops in larger articles with no WP:SIGCOV involved. Original AfD probably should have closed no consensus NPASR due to lack of participation if nothing else. MSJapan (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as I also concur the 1st AfD was another case of a too quick close; examining this is actually not finding what could make it both independently notable and convincing, since the largest information there is here is a clients list.  SwisterTwister   talk  23:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly an advertorial page. No indications of notability or significance; notability is not inherited from notable performers. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - 20 year history of signing notable artists. Listed in Billboard as a significant Chicago indie label.  Notable per NMUSIC#5.  Notability not inherited from artists, but notable by the criteria by which record labels gain notability, which is by influencing culture by releasing, over a period of time, culturally significant releases by culturally significant artists.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 13:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging Articles for deletion/Carrot Top Records commenters:, , , and . Cunard (talk) 04:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Contra to, we are not talking about the definition of notability one might find on Wiktionary, but the specific Wikipedia definition of notability. Nothing the subject is or does confers notability in that regard. One thing, and one thing only, confers it&mdash;the availability of substantial amounts of reference material written about the subject (directly about the subject, not about something affiliated with the subject) by sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. No number of name drops or blurbs in such sources confers notability in that regard, nor does "influence" or anything else. I couldn't find that type of reference material before (hence the previous nomination), and I still see no reason to believe it exists now. As to "NMUSIC #5", firstly, this is notability criteria for a band (per the guideline: "musicians or ensembles"), not a label, so that doesn't apply here as the article is not about a band. NMUSIC #5 also specifically references major record labels with a specific pointer to the article about major labels. This label is not listed there, nor can I find any reference indicating that it is considered a major label and should be on that list. All that aside, even if it did meet that SNG, meeting an SNG confers a presumption of notability, but that is a rebuttable presumption if the references can be shown to in fact not be out there (the guideline even says "may be notable" if they meet such a criterion). In this case, they are, to the best of my ability to find, not in existence. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You ceased reading NMUSIC#5 too soon. I never claimed that Carrot Top was one of the major record labels.  These are very, very few.  Instead, the salient point is what follows: "one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)."  According to this, Carrot Top Records easily fits the definition of "one of the more important indie labels."  It comes down to what makes a record label notable, and I already presented my case on that point.  As a discographer, I would be sorry to see this article go, even though I have no particular interest in the genres generally recorded by this label.  The article presents disparate, useful, and verifiable information from a variety of reliable sources, regarding a topic which will be of interest to musicologists, disographers, and music historians when researching certain areas of Chicago (and much broader because of its distributions) music.  As such, I can see no benefit to the encyclopedia should this article be deleted, and in fact some harm.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 16:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The article as it stands is unconvincing; it's largely a list of the acts that published with the label (cited to the latter's web site) and does not really provide any content of value to the readers. I honestly don't see anything worth salvaging. I looked for sources but could find only passing one line mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the article is of little interest to the general reader, but Wikipedia is a specialist encyclopedia as well as a general encyclopedia. To someone who performs the type of research I do (although my research is towards much older record label entities), the article contains information about the when and why of its founding, how it played a role in a distribution debate between independent labels and major retailers, that that label also had direct retail interests, and that it additionally acted as a distributor.  Yes, the article is a stub, but the information contained is WP:V.  Because of the length of history and the large number of notable artists, the topic is highly likely to draw interest from discographers/musicologists.  Specialized, sure, but I respectfully disagree that it provides no value to any reader, and therefore the encyclopedia is not improved by its deletion.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 15:32, 6 October 2016 (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.