Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastwood 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 only two arguments to keep are from 1) The creator of the article, who has an extremely narrow editing focus, and 2) a procedural complaint based on an apparently erroneous assumption that WP:BEFORE was satisfied. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Eastwood Records

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. There's only one source (the March 2015 voice-tribune piece) that might be reliable that mentions the subject a little and that's still just local coverage. I don't see notability with anything else here. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 16:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Subject does not fail WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. It is moot to question the validity of a news source simply because it is "local". Particularly when the news source is "local" to the country’s 16th-largest metropolis and is in physical print and distribution (https://voice-tribune.com/about-us/where-to-find/) and is also mentioned in the Wikipedia article, Media in Louisville, Kentucky. Second, the other news pieces (voice-tribune August 2015 and louisvilleky.com. 14 April 2017) demonstrate active and current contributions to the culture of a major city. Third, the connection between this label and the career resurrection of a notable figure (Peter Searcy)--as he is clearly defined through the fact that he has a Wikipedia article--has been firmly proven (popdose.com. 12 June 2017). To say that this subject fails to prove notability is to deny notability of Peter Searcy and the validity of a viable, in-print news source of a major city. Collectively, the sources demonstrate verified activity mentioned by news sources over a period of years proving activity over a span of time WP:SUSTAINED MzViolet84 (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 16:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 16:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 16:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LOCAL: "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability" The fact that the Voice-Tribune isn't itself notable doesn't help. Also, name-dropping is a cognitive bias. Just because the studio/label is somehow involved with a notable artist does not confer notability, per WP:INHERITED. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Since notability is not conferred, the statement "x does not confer notability" is a truism. Unscintillating (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:LOCAL is a substandard essay. The relevant Wikipedia policy is WP:V, which does not care if the source was published in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania or St. Matthews, Kentucky.  WP:V is the applicable standard for AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As for the Voice-Tribune, the claim that it is not notable is an opinion unsupported with evidence, since notability is defined outside of Wikipedia. The nomination has yet to provide the WP:BEFORE evidence for the article nominated, much less the WP:BEFORE for the Voice Tribune.  I have personal knowledge of this particular newspaper.  It has a long history and to my knowledge it has had and continues to have a good reputation as a general-purpose newspaper.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Referring to an actual current and ongoing business transaction that supports the career of a notable figure is not, by definition, name-dropping (simply naming or alluding to important people and institutions within a conversation) nor is it a cognitive bias when legal documents of contract can be produced supporting this business arrangement that is the very fabric of the business in question. It is a factual and verifiable piece of the current career and legacy of a notable figure and denotes a substantial interaction with this figure who chose to facilitate the dealing of his own choice free will. Just as any independent label, such a Kemosabe Records, mentions artists like Ke$ha in their articles, names are mentioned not to name-drop, but rather to substantiate the very nature of their basic business model. If the logic of a label not mentioning their artists were sound, every record label on Wikipedia should delete all artist rosters and names of associated artists and rely solely on the remaining available information. MzViolet84 (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep First of all, this is a publisher, so the standard of WP:SUSTAINED must be interpreted to apply to the context, and the context here is a low bar.  The absence of WP:BEFORE D1 evidence in the nomination from Google books implies that sources are already available there.  Given that the nomination is a notability argument, the nomination has not followed the nomination requirements to make sure that redirect targets are not available for the reliable material, which implies that such targets are available.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you require me to say that I did, in fact, search for sources before nomination? Can you not assume I would have done such? Have you searched and found any reliable sources? And if the beloved Voice Tribune says this studio was created a scant two years ago, how would the studio pass SUSTAINED? Does this studio exist? Yes. Is that enough for inclusion? No. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:N states, "We consider evidence..." Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  There is no need for me to make a trip to the library when the nomination hasn't provided minimal evidence of a problem.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - searches turned up virtually zero about this company. Fails WP:GNG and doesn't come close to meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. The Voice-Tribune piece is simply a regurgitated press release (the hint is when an "article" includes stuff like, "for more info call xxx-xxxx" or "here's our website"). And that's the only piece which even comes close. The others are mere mentions, or from unreliable or primary sources.  Onel 5969  TT me 19:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: fails WP:NCORP due to lack of third-party sources.   Dr Strauss   talk   13:13, 5 August 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.