Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flesh Eating Ants 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. Cirt (talk) 08:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Flesh Eating Ants Records

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Doesn't meet notability guidelines of either WP:CORP or WP:MUSIC  PK T (alk)  20:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  — J04n(talk page) 20:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this record label. Joe Chill (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Mmm but the thing is this article is not any less notable than many of the other bands/record labels we have articles on. I know the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument but if we must delete such articles I think we'd be better off deleting the rest of the similar level bands/labels as if often seems like double standards. Himalayan   15:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, that's why I prod them or set them up for AfD.  PK  T (alk)  18:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Well... Download, Ka-Spel, LPD and PlatEAU are all notable artists.  It looks like FEA co-released with cEvin Key's Subconscious label, and I see a review on brainwashed.org which is an appropriate (but admittedly not great) source.  Looks like they were short lived.  - BalthCat (talk) 08:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Is Download really notable though? The article is unreferenced, and the discography section does not mention Flesh Eating Ants Records as the being their label. Edward Ka-Spel has likewise been tagged as unreferenced for more than 2 years, and PlatEAU again has no references. The Legendary Pink Dots look like they actually might be notable, but their article is not well referenced. So, I don't think that the label is notable based on the notability of the artists. DigitalC (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Without question all those artists are notable. This new fad where common sense notability is "invisible" if there's no JSTOR article is new and ultimately delitirious to Wikipedia as far as I'm concerned.  The label is likely not notable, because of the limited number of releases and that it appears to have not been the exclusive label fo those releases.  However the potential for those four artists to transfer notability to that label would have been significant if the label had been home to those artists for a period of time and was exclusive. - BalthCat (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Balthcat - what do you mean by "common sense notability is "invisible" if there's no JSTOR article"? Other than that, I think we agree, although perhaps IMO labels are generally far less notable than the bands they release recordings for. WP:NOTINHERITED is important. IF Flesh Eating Ants records had been around longer and done more, then this AfD wouldn't have been created.  But they weren't, and didn't.   PK  T (alk)  18:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd caution some people in this discussion to keep in mind that "unreferenced" is not necessarily the same thing as "not notable"; an article can be poorly referenced but still about a topic that's unquestionably notable enough for inclusion. All of the artists mentioned above fall into that camp; I've even heard of them all and I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the genre. That said, past AFD consensus has established that the notability of a musical artist doesn't automatically confer notability upon the record label that puts out their albums; WP:MUSIC doesn't address the notability of record labels at all (though it probably should). A label with a roster of notable artists is certainly likely to be notable enough, but the roster doesn't confer notability in isolation — reliable sources do still need to be present in the article. Keep if additional sources can be found; delete, without prejudice against future recreation, if they can't. Bearcat (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete as it does not appear sources can be found. Quantpole (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Discogs, which credits them with all of 6 releases in their whole history, all but one of which are Canadian vinyl releases of material otherwise available from other labels. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Reagrdless of the suspect notability of the people on the label, this company shows no independant signs of notability from secondary sources. Angryapathy (talk) 17:29, 25 November 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.