Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imaginary 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Imaginary Records

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don't see any reason as to why this article would be considered notable due to a lack of references or independent sources. olowe2011 (talk) 02:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

(rationale updated)
 * Comment - I did not withdraw my nomination however I may have replaced or moved a template accidentally due to inexperience using some of Wikipedia's editing tools. With regards to this article; I am no expert in the music industry and it wouldn't be appropriate for me to convey an opinion in that light however, based on a general search of scholarly, news and other internet based records it's incredibly hard to find anything on imaginary records that would imply the company is notable. In fact some of the sources provided actually contradict the information provided in the article for example it (the article) states that the records group was founded in Manchester, England yet somehow released singles in the United States yet no sources seem to prove the fact that the Imaginary records founded in Manchester, England is the same Imaginary Records that released any singles in the United States. The sourcing and information on this company is so vague that there is actually no information to back up or assert any claims with any stone evidence. It's worth also noting that some sources point to webpages that hold absolutely no information on them either.
 * One major point to be argued as to why this should be deleted is that due to the lack of sources there is actually not enough information to go on to create an informative article about it. Information is in dispute for example if or not the Imaginary Records founded in Manchester, England is the same one that released the records in the United States of America and there seems to be no viable sources to settle the argument either way. This in itself proves that the company shouldn't have a page on Wikipedia even if its for the simple fact there isn't enough information available on the internet to provide for an article that we can be confident in it's factuality. Pictogram voting comment.svg  Olowe2011  Talk 06:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Where does it state anywhere in the article that this label released singles in the US? There are several sources in the article that confirm the article content - your suggestion that there is "no information to back up or assert any claims with any stone evidence" is clearly not true. Pretty much everything in the article is properly sourced so we already have an article for which we can be confident of its factuality. --Michig (talk) 07:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * *Comment - Okay, please give me two independent sources that indicate the origin of this record label being in Manchester, England and two which name the albums they have created. Pictogram voting comment.svg Olowe2011  Talk 12:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously? NYT source cited in the article: "The Barrett album was the brainchild of Alan Duffy, proprietor of Britain's Imaginary Records. Mr. Duffy has since assembled and released tributes to the Kinks, the Byrds and Captain Beefheart; tributes to the Rolling Stones, Jimi Hendrix and the 60's singer-songwriter Nick Drake are on the way." It's trivially easy to confirm releases by the label. Trevor Dann's book Darker Than the Deepest Sea (2006): "Alan Duffy, who ran the remarkable Imaginary Records label from his bedroom in Manchester, produced Brittle Days, the first tribute album to Nick Drake." Q.E.D. --Michig (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  02:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. The nominator appears to have put an AfD tag on the article then changed their mind and removed it. I think that should be taken as withdrawing the nomination. --Michig (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: Another user has placed the AfD template back on the article (diff). North America1000 21:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: yeah, it's going to be tough to prove this one's notability. Here are a list of weak sources I've found:, , , and . FoCuS  contribs ;  talk to me!  22:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07  ( T ) 15:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep. I created this article as one of my first edits to the wiki back in 2006, before I had any idea about notability criteria. I think the sources included show that this just about scrapes WP:N. (Incidentally, I think the Imaginary Records mentioned in The International Who's Who in Popular Music 2002, above, is a different company, based in the US) — sparklism  hey! 19:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, while the article could do with some cleanup, the NYT and Guardian coverage establishes notability in my book. Huon (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 02:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per my comments above (in case it wasn't clear that I think it should be kept). --Michig (talk) 06:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability is established and references are present to verify it. Fiddle   Faddle  14:28, 21 August 2015 (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.