Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Eugene Records

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

Label has one barely notable band, no media coverage by 3rd party sources. Hoponpop69 (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you NOT read the article or follow any of the references? Please allow me to present the "third party" sources:
 * http://www.allrecordlabels.com/db/1/4661.html
 * http://www.lexingtonshows.com/main.html
 * http://history.louisvillehardcore.com/index.php?title=Eugene_Records


 * Half of the bands on the label are active in the Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio region as well as in Louisiana. Before Ace Weekly dumped all of its online backlog, there were several articles on Eugene Records as well as the bands it sponsors. Ace Weekly is a Lexington based arts and entertainment magazine that promotes the alternative scene as well as the mainstream happenings in Central Kentucky.


 * Given that today is Thanksgiving, it may take me a while to contact those people who still have paper copies of those articles if you really need to have those additional references.- Team4Technologies (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition, it has been pointed out that the edits from Hoponpop69 to similar articles may violate WP:Point and/or WP:Disruption and his User Talk page shows evidence of his violation of No personal attacks, so this may just be yet another episode of a volatile user. - Team4Technologies (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's drop that and discuss the article and not the nom. The user's supposed past disruptiveness and personal attacks should not come into play unless they are directly affecting this topic. In a nutshell, assume good faith. MuZemike  ( talk ) 15:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * is a user edited site.Hoponpop69 (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is notable in that it occupies a niche market for punk music in the region, it has a stable of bands that have long histories, several bands on the label (like the Infected and the Kenmores) are nationally touring bands, and produce an internationally distributed fanzine (Eugene Fanzine). While that may not sound very notable for more urban areas, this is Central Kentucky we're talking about. It's about as notable as it can get there. - Team4Technologies (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not meet notability for companies because it lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The Central Kentucky argument is very weak - in this case, notability is not relative to region. As said in the nom, there is apparently only one barely (if that) notable band that is part of the label. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This afternoon I talked to the director of Eugene Records and when he gets the chance (probably over the weekend) he will give me some references that are more established. He says he keeps all of the material that's been published about Eugene Records, Eugene Fanzine, and as many articles about the bands on the label as possible.  Hopefully in the next few days I'll be able to revamp the article or he will do it, possibly tonight. - Team4Technologies (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 13:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:CORP and WP:ORG. A label with no notable artists is pretty much non-notable by definition. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails to establish notability per WP:CORP.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 20:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep They are notable enough. That's my conclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep A record label with as many releases as this one seems to me to be worth keeping. the infamous rmx (talk) 13:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete it doesn't matter how many releases the label has, if the notability is not there.Hoponpop69 (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2008 (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.