Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egg 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. — A itias  //  discussion  00:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Egg Records

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article on record label, obviously self-created, that provides little or no justification for existence as an article and written like a press release. Releasing eight records in the late 1980s is hardly an indication of being a notable record company, then or now. Neither does releasing 17 CDs since 2003 without indicating any chart action on any national chart. No indication as to why Egg Records was "important" as the article states. CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I suppose it's possible to argue that this company's activities have some sort of historical value as the bands mentioned there seem to be inactive. However, I doubt that would satisfy WP:CORP (which I suppose it applicable here), and more importantly, these articles are later used to claim notability for obscure artists, and then for the individually obscure members of said obscure bands, and their obscure releases, ad nauseam. § FreeRangeFrog 06:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  —Artw (talk) 08:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  —Artw (talk) 08:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CORP. Releasing 8 records (21 songs total) over 5 years, all of them uber-micro-obscure singles that couldn't possibly have sold more than a handful of copies, strongly suggests this was a hobbyist sort of thing rather than a true record label.  There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but it isn't up to WP:CORP by a long shot. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. I fully concur with  St ar bli nd .   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 01:03, 5 March 2009 (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.