Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of record labels starting with a non-letter


 * 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 to delete; consensus to rename&mdash;It appears there is a consensus to rename to something more easily understood. I will leave that renaming to a discussion on Talk:List of record labels starting with a non-letter. The main lack of consensus on deletion is between the use of lists vs. categories. Among those arguing for categorization two options emerge: putting everything into Category:Record labels vs. putting into categories such as Category:Record labels starting with A. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 21:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

List of record labels starting with a non-letter

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

An indiscriminate list of record labels. J- ſtan TalkContribs 04:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to say that I wasn't fully aware of the context of this list when I nominated it. I do think the information should be kept, just maybe in a category. J- ſtan TalkContribs 18:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

*Delete as per... yeah. What they said. --carelesshx talk 05:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per nom (and NOT)..I don't even think this should be a category. - Rjd0060 05:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 05:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Question - Without this article, is there a way to browse record labels alphabetically? It didn't seem to be accessible via Category:Record labels. Did I miss something? -GTBacchus(talk) 06:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep OK wait a second... if we delete this page, shouldn't we also delete List of record labels starting with A and all the rest of the alphabetical lists? Wouldn't it make more sense to get rid of the entire category Category:Lists of record labels and just add all the record labels to Category:Record labels? --carelesshx talk 06:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea, I think. Maser  ( Talk! ) 07:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I can live with that. J- ſtan TalkContribs 18:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete As above, this is what categories are for. MortimerCat 08:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Per the article, there are over 20,000 record labels and so I can see that some structural lists like this might be needed and useful. Colonel Warden 08:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is spliting out a massive list of record labels into smaller, managable chunks. Yes, there is a category for record labels (Category:Record labels), but this is a top level cat, and individual labels are categorized by location, genre, year of establishment, etc. Lugnuts 08:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete only if we're deleting all of the lists and making sure everything is in the category.--SeizureDog 08:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The background to this was to break up the original article List of record labels. Over time, each letter has been cleansed (removal of non-notable labels) and expanded (trawling through all the sub-cats - by country, genre, independent status, etc) to populate those pages. Each record label entry usually points back to the main list for reference.  As far as I'm aware there is no other A-Z view of record labels on Wikipedia.  There is a message in the cat for record labels that instructs people not to put individual labels in the top level cat.  Often I move new articles from that cat to appropiate sub-cats (eg Category:American record labels, etc).  When checking on how to break up a big list, I read the WP guidance on this, and surprise, surprise, look at one of the examples on that very page quotes - List of record labels starting with A!  Thanks for your time. Lugnuts 12:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This list adds nothing that couldn't be better achieved by using a category. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment So you'd have, for example Lugnuts Records, in the category Category:Record labels and then in the subcats Category:British record labels and Category:Alternative music record labels? Lugnuts 15:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. per non, plus another pointless list. Willirennen 18:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless someone wants to browse record labels alphabetically, right? Do you support deletion of the whole set of lists, one for each letter? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and move all of these start with numbers. How about a move to List of record labels starting with a number or something similar Doc Strange 22:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd go along with the above comment. I think in a very early list there was some odd-ball entry starting with a non-letter, but renaming it to < > sounds good to me. Lugnuts 08:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Seal Clubber (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment How is this indiscriminate? IE - how does it lack in selectivity?  It's quite the opposite - a clear list of notable record labels starting with a non-letter. How is it any different from this list or this one or this one? Lugnuts (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * See my note above. I wasn't quite sure of the context before nominating this. I thought it was an indiscriminate list, but I see that this was just following a pattern of other lists. The title was what confused me most. I would be in favor of a move to List of record labels 0-9, since they all start with numbers. J- ſtan TalkContribs 19:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. So I'm absouletly clear - this should be moved to the new/standard name and not deleted? Lugnuts (talk) 08:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe it should be categorized under Category:Record labels 0-9 (or a variant thereof), and then delete this one, but if the AfD is closed as keep, it should definitely be moved. J- ſtan TalkContribs 22:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing it up. I'd happily support the renaming of the page, but not the categorization, as explained above. Lugnuts (talk) 08:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep simply based on comments from GTBacchus. Awkward page name. And not really category content. Peter Fleet (talk) 09:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete these lists can be dealt with through the use of MediaWiki categories. RFerreira (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2007 (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.