Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everything records

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. CDC  (talk)  21:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Everything records
Patent nonsense created by aghost, who has written several other questionable articles. Denni &#9775; 00:33, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
 * Is this really 'so completely and irremediably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to try to make heads or tails of it'? I can understand it more as a vanity issue, but i keep getting the feeling that users here think that if they can't find music on google, it doesn't exist.  The problem is that there is no objective view of fame. Aghost 00:49, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I'm happy to accept that things I can't find on Google exist. In fact, I'm busy trying to track down stuff based only on titles and a poorly-arranged cover track.  I'm satisfied that the original tracks I'm looking for do exist.  I'm also satisfied that a label created yesterday on Wikipedia itself clearly makes for a vanity Wikipedia article which should be deleted. Chris talk back 04:32, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wiki should not be a platform for infastructure. The absence of a seperate website from wiki suggests aghost is using this page as a means to avoid webhosting costs. Imagine: Every company (profit or not) having a wiki page advertising their employees and show dates. I'd also like to add that the only ones who seem to support this page are he and his friends. I'd like to see someone who isn't involved with EVERYTHING RECORDS directly, or indirectly, provide a coherent reason for keeping this page. --ImaSpy 03:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * lets not forget that its rather difficult to 'advertise' a show thats already happened. Aghost 15:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Objectively, something created yesterday most likely doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Gamaliel 01:36, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, no evidence of notability. --W(t) 01:58, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
 * Delete, notability not established. Megan1967 02:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Crush underfoot, I mean delete. -- Hoary 04:04, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
 * Delete Vanity --Bobbagum 20:18, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete: Vandalism. You do not create a record label on Wikipedia!  That is called hijacking, and we don't allow it.  Wikipedia is not a web host.  It is not an announcement board.  It is not a chat room.  It is not a university.  It is an encyclopedia.  Geogre 20:42, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, I consider the wiki piranhas who are circling carpenter to be a classic case of internet bullying (see: trolling). If only the users posting this tripe could visit Baltimore and observe the profound effect of Everything and it's subsidaries on the area and it's community. The actual content of wwcarpen/aghost and everything records (www.kracfive.com please) should be consumed before such hasty judgement (and if your tastes differ then you should find a friend who can accurately judge this type of music) . In any case, it deserves preservation and is a travesty that there is such proactive movement against. Khonnor 02:47, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * So just what is the "profound effect of Everything [records] and it's [sic] subsidiaries on the [Baltimore] area and it's [sic] community", User:Khonnor? And how is this independently verifiable? (Incidentally, I notice that your only edits so far are to this VfD page and to User:Khonnor.) -- Hoary 03:03, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clear vanity. Do not create articles about yourself. Double Blue  (Talk) 03:20, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * do not say do not. here, have a donut. Aghost 14:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC) (sorry) Aghost 03:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete and ban. Creating real things is hard work. You know, like trying to write an encyclopedia without having people inserting their own fantasies into it. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 17:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * "founded on the wikipedia". Attempt to use Wikipedia to host a personal project.  Wikipedia is not a hosting service. Delete. Uncle G 15:10, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
 * Delete, echo Uncle G. --BaronLarf 23:48, May 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * i dont understand why this article presents problems as a homepage or file storage site (in reference to Wikipedia is not a hosting service). it provides only encyclopedic information. I would like to know which portion of the article isn't considered so. Aghost 00:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, Being a Baltimore resident, I am familiar with the label Everything records. I also attest that this label was present before it was "founded" on Wikipedia, as I am an acquaintance with the founder. Must there be a fancy website to show proof? Yes, the label is small and open-source, but the persons that have voted for deletion are simply not informed. As the internet is the only frame of reference for many people to conduct research on an article within Wikipedia, I understand how administrators might feel if a primarily electronic and computer-music record label does not have a notable website to display capitalist ideals. I stress that deletion of this article would symbolize the non-observation of a documented fact. I have walked into a store, albeit only in Baltimore at the time, and purchased music produced by this label. I have seen their studio, I have handed out flyers for performances. They exist, and not because of Wikipedia. The founder is merely attempting to provide this site with factual information. I comprehend WHY some would wish to delete this article, but again, I stress that decision comes from the inability to locate convenient urls for Everything Records and endless caches of online-music purchases from the label. ....posted at 02:02, 2005 May 25 by Pyramidman a new username whose contributions have been extraordinarily limited.


 * pyramidman is rami (musician)'s wikipedia account. Hopefully this presents some sort of verification. Aghost 03:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, self promotion. Leanne 05:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete no evidence of notability, aside from issues of vanity articles and using wikipedia as a hosting service.
 * Delete: Per earlier comments above, yes I agree Everything Records exists. But, there are several people/groups who think they are the one, true Everything Records. See (see album Something Borrowed) and . Aghost found his version of Everything Records here on Wikipedia, which is not a hosting service, and something that was founded on 20 May of this year has hardly been in existence long enough to be considered notable. Aghost similarly founded Free Online University on Wikipedia. That article was put up for deletion, and it lost. See [Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Free_Online_University]. This project is little different. I don't think we should be taking the stance that anything made/edited by Aghost should be ruthlessly hunted down and deleted. I do think we should fairly and judiciously apply Wikipedia's policies. In this case, it seems very clear this article should be deleted based on Wikipedia policies. If, however, the article were re-written to be about a considerably more notable Everything Records, then we perhaps consider keeping it. --Durin 02:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * something borrowed is a release for for everything records. research goes beyond just tapping things into google durin. Aghost 04:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed it does. With that in mind, perhaps you'd like to defend why there are (if we include yours) three 'Everything Records'? I've done my homework. Let's see yours :) --Durin 04:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * read carefully, you cite a release on a label entitled for everything records as well a label that has no copyright and virtually no notability or verifiabilty. Aghost 05:37, 28 May 2005 (UTC) if its that much of a concern why dont we create disambiguation pages for these other supposedly notable labels you mention. Aghost 05:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * You chastise me for citing a no notability and no verifiability record label of the same name, and expect us to vote to keep your record label founded here on Wikipedia a few days ago? You can't be serious. --Durin 19:41, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Though created prior to everything records, everything records would likey be in violation of nothing records' copyright and this is probably why they do not hold a copyright themselves. everything records is considerably more notable as it holds a copyleft and all of the artists have released albums on a notable label, and/or shown work or performed music to large audiences for several years. Aghost 03:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree with everyone when they say that Wikipedia is not an advertising board, and that "a label founded on Wikipedia" is an oxymoron. However, I do believe this article can have some potential iff (if and only if)
 * The article is completely written by someone other than the founder or any of the associated artists;
 * Evidence of any notable widespread (preferably international) releases is provided.
 * Outside of that, yes, it is nothing more than a vanity page. --Jb-adder 01:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment I count 14 delete and 2 keep, without looking at the credentials of the voters. Any reason to keep this going?  Cheers.--BaronLarf 13:48, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.