Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isadora 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   no consensus. Shi meru  00:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Isadora Records

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non notable record company - fails WP:CORP ONLY claim to any form of notability is one of inheritance through signed artists. Also fails WP:V Codf1977 (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

To be considered notable, an article does not need to meet a quantifiable checklist of specific accomplishments; it need only be referenced to one or more reliable sources, which this is. Furthermore, Hawksley Workman, Serena Ryder and their album articles do all require somewhere to link to in the "label" field of their infoboxes. And for that matter, how on earth does the article fail WP:V in any way, shape or form? Keep. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree both the WP:GNG and WP:CORP lay down that a subject of an article should have received significant coverage. as it says in WP:CORP ""Notable" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even organizations that editors personally believe are "important" are only accepted as notable if they can be shown to have attracted notice. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is." The info boxes can list the label without an wp article. Codf1977 (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  —Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. As currently written, the article fails WP:V because it has one reference that only mentions Isadora Records once, in passing (ie, the article is not about the label, it's about the musician).  The article might survive by virtue of the label's connection to Serena Ryder, although IMO WP:NOTINHERITED ought to apply.   PK  T (alk)  12:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per nontrivial coverage of the record label in such publications as Billboard, Maclean's, and the Winnipeg Free Press (now added). I too am perplexed by the assertions that this article "fails WP:V". Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 02:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not able to read most of the refs as they do not have links however :
 * "Prolific songwriter laments the death of the record store" Winnipeg Free Press looks like it is more about Hawksley Workman than Isadora judging by the title.
 * "Hawksley's moxie" - Maclean'sagain judging by the title is more about Hawksley Workman; and
 * "Serena Ryder: Unlikely Emergency: Isadora Records" - The Boston Globe looks like an artical about Unlikely Emergency.
 * That leaves the Billboard refs :
 * "Canadian singer/songwriter Hawksley Workman lets 'The Wolves' out on his own Isadora label" is likely about the release of the "The Wolves" and the fact that he has started a new record company to do so.
 * "Meat-and-Greet" - is unclear what this could be about.
 * So given that I can't see how this is record company meets WP:CORP. Codf1977 (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There's significant coverage of the record label in each of the Billboard articles, in the Free Press article, and in the Maclean's article, although it's not apparent just from reading their titles. That some of them are primarily about Workman himself is not a problem for WP:N. And WP:CORP says, "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability", but this is not trivial or incidental coverage. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 20:23, 9 July 2010 (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.
 * 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.