Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of record labels


 * 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 of the debate was Keep. kingboyk 16:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

List of record labels
A very large list which isn't particularly useful. Categories are better for record labels than lists. Delete. kingboyk 23:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, per nom. This is why we have categories. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a very large list because there was a *load of record companies. It isn't even complete.  Is there an alternative?  I'd like to add a couple myself just to get the ball rolling.--sabinelr 17 Apr 2006 1819 PDT
 * An alternative? Have you checked out Category:Record labels? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Retain Such pages are useful where confusion and lack of clarity are a possibliity. Philip Cross 10:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep because being a list is not enough reason to delete. Lists perform an essential function in the reference hierarchy. Unlike categories, lists can show in a single location which articles are missing, and provide descriptions in cases of ambiguity. This list has a good mixture of red and blue links. Keep. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Just my two cents, but I just needed to know if Capitol Records was part of Warner Music or not. I came to Wikipedia, found that link in 2 seconds and now I know. So, for me, it was completely handy. April 22, 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.190.209.165 (talk • contribs).
 * Retain- I see no reason to get rid of a very complete list of record labels. It seems a waste to get rid of something that can be quite useful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.78.110.99 (talk • contribs).
 * Retain For the purpose of researching a specific record lasble, a list is much more useful than categories. Many Lable would have to be listed under several categories and may or may not be listed under the categories one person thinks it should be. For a specific genre, categories are more useful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.154.117.178 (talk • contribs).

''This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!'' kingboyk 10:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm no list monger, but I consider this one useful. PJM 11:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per zzuuzz. --Arnzy (Talk) 12:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, an example of a good thing to have a list article for. Mangojuice 12:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, encyclopedic list. --Ter e nce Ong 15:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per all above. Jcuk 20:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I actually used this list yesterday looking for alternate spellings of a record label in Amsterdam. --Joelmills 22:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a very useful list, I've used it quite a few times before. It's a lot easier to use than a group of categories.
 * Keep Visual diagrams, such as a list, help explain the complexity of the record industry.


 * 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.