Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dixieland 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Dixieland Records

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not enough sources exist to write an article of substance. Questionable notability. Mostly untouched for eleven years. Vmavanti (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 14:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 14:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Vmavanti (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep by default - no valid reason for deletion has been offered. Of the three things mentioned, the first might become a reason if sufficient legwork is demonstrated - I'd like to know what Tom Lord and other major jazz discographers have listed, and sadly I do not have access to Lord's book right now. Chubbles (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can't find any coverage in a secondary source, let along significant coverage that is reliable and independent. Delete. Ikjbagl (talk) 02:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * another comment: Is there even a source to prove that the one sentence in the article is true? I couldn't find one, nothing turns up at all for "Dixieland Records inc". Ikjbagl (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I resent the comments by poster number one. What does "keep by default" mean? Is it the old Groucho Marx song "Whatever it is, I'm against it"? I don't know. The accusation that I have offered "no valid reasons" is obviously false. Read my sentences again. Those are valid reasons stated simply and plainly, so anyone can understand them. By contrast, what is one to make of "if sufficient legwork is demonstrated"? This is speculation, suggestion, insinuation, and the invention of an imaginary criterion. When and how are "sufficient legwork" demonstrated? Where did that come from? If there is a specific point, get to it, and let's hear it. But let's not play games simply because one has strong feelings or wishes but no facts or reasons.
 * I don't disagree with you here,, but I still feel new on Wiki, so I often feel like I'm doing the wrong thing no matter what I do! (in jest,) Ikjbagl (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Vmavanti (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article is one sentence long and cites no sources at all. If sources are later found to support having an article and establish notability, the article can be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Tom Lord's discography is just that...a list. There's not enough content to provide material for an article.


 * Delete. The label fails the criterion outlined in WP:ORG. The article does not cite any sources and a Google search of the label doesn't show any coverage.  Versace1608   Wanna Talk? 15:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete — Per rationale provided by . Celestina007 (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2020 (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.