Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Century Record Manufacturing Company


 * 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) f  e  minist  05:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Century Record Manufacturing Company

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Small company in business for just 18 years. No claim to notability indicated. Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient coverage in RS. MB 03:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   06:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   06:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- A7 material; no indications of significance nor why Wikipedia should have a page on this subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - this was, in my estimation, the largest custom record label of its time, and perhaps of any time. As a collector, I very frequently run across the products, seems like 80% of all high schools used this company at one time or another between 1960 and 1975 for their band and choir.  Not sure if I can make this meet GNG or not, but I'd like to be careful before deleting this one.  PS, 18 years isn't shabby bad by record label standards.  78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 14:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep – Mindful that the article itself is weak, the label, in a general sense, seems notable, if for no other reason, for the fact that it was used by institutions of higher learning. Among other things, its discography chronicles a boat-load of 20th and 21st century works – many by U.S. composers – mostly performed by a wide array of universities.  To that end, the label is a source for educators and researchers – including musicologists.  For that crowd, the topic helps bibliographers. The label also chronicles the levels of music education at American institutions.  In particular, the entire inventory of recordings represents a "sound history" of the level of performances reached by American intuitions.  Incidentally, if you do a search on WorldCat under keywords, "Century" and "Saugus" (screening for "sound recordings"), you might get about 966 hits.  In other words, its notability, or the possibility of any perceived notability, might better be ascertained by composers and music oriented academicians.  The subject is obviously esoteric. Yet, I am suggesting that criteria for notability is, in this case, nuanced.  I posted the article while researching a composer whose works were found on the label. Amplifying a point (see above) made by   User:78.26 , the lifespan of record labels – particularly those of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s – are akin to dog years. Eighteen years is an eternity for an independent label, particularly one that served a niche, non-profit sector – albeit a large sector that extended from coast to coast. For me, looking at a label can be frustrating when nothing is known, namely, among other things, whether it is dead or alive or custom or commercial. – Eurodog (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - The source, while not all online, seem to help the subject meet at least WP:COMPANY if not WP:GNG. Thanks to Eurodog for finding them and improving the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - a different sort of record label. There aren't any signed artists, you gave Century a wad of cash, you got a record made.  However, the affect on the record industry by Century was significant.  It is therefore an encyclopedic topic.  Thanks to Eurodog for finding some sources so we can verify the statements in the article.  I believe this now meets GNG guidelines.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 21:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG as only one of the references passes the required criteria. I've examined the references in the context of the requirements set out for acceptable sources that establishes notability and except for one Billboard article the sources provided fall short:
 * This obituary of Bud Keysor fails WP:ORGIND and is neither critical nor intellectually independent. The information and data appears to come from his relatives and therefore WP:PRIMARY sources and the obituary is about the person Bud Keysor and not the topic of this article (which is mentioned in passing). Finally, the source itself appears to be a regional source and describes itself as a "nonprofit community service organization that operates the Sata Clarita Valley's public television channel)".
 * This obituary of Jim Keysor (son of Bud) only mentions the company in passing and is insufficient to assist establishing notability.
 * This Billboard article and especially the opening paragraphs appear sufficiently intellectually independent when discussing the industry as a whole and therefore meets the criteria. Although most of the Century Record information comes from a company officer and would therefore fail WP:ORGIND as a WP:PRIMARY source, I believe the opening paragraphs are good.
 * This next Billboard article fails the criteria in WP:CORPDEPTH as it appear to be a simple PR announcement of the opening of a new facility.
 * The Signal article headlined "Company's woes still plague SCV" is from a regional newspaper called "The Signal" who self-describe as "a community newspaper serving the Santa Clarita Valley" which "covers local news, sports and community activities". In my opinion, this source fails as a reliable source "with a reputation for fact checking". Also, some of the information comes from the unverified and unsubstantiated memories of "Betty", a "former employee" who wished to remain anonymous but is obviously worried about her health.
 * There are two sources that I am unable to find as they do not appear online and perhaps those sources may meet the guidelines - if anyone could be kind enough to post a snippet, it may swing my !vote. Those sources are the "Music Journal Annual Anthology, pg. 171 (1959)" and the article from "Valley News". -- HighKing ++ 17:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. as well documented as can be expected for the subject.  DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What does that mean? Do "esoteric" subjects need less coverage to meet GNG? The description of what this company did seems rather mundane and not surprisingly unnotable. If someone can propose some article on the record industry where this company can be mentioned, then there could be a minor merge and redirect. MB 05:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Onel 5969  TT me 01:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Seems to meet GNG with those external references. I'd be fine with some cleanup, however. South Nashua (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2017 (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.