Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Makebelieve 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Makebelieve Records

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I can't fidn any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:CORP. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 19:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC) 
 * Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 20:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Label of notable bands. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Having a roster of notable bands doesn't make the label notable (notability isn't inherited). The label doesn't appear to have been covered in depth by any reliable secondary sources and doesn't meet any of the other criteria at WP:CORP. --JD554 (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If a band is notable enough for its own article, then we effectively require an article about the label that releases the band's music as well — because if the label can't have an article, then by definition the band isn't getting covered properly if we can't write about the context of how they got their music out in order to become notable enough for an article. Intermission EP didn't just appear out of the ether, and Redefine isn't going to be magically transported into record stores by Keebler elves. If a band is notable enough to be on here, then writing about that band properly pretty much requires an article about any company, small or large though it may be, that's directly responsible for getting that band's music out onto the market. And since we're talking about two bands that are sufficiently notable for their own articles, then rinse, lather, and repeat. Ergo, keep. Bearcat (talk) 09:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because the label isn't notable enough for its own article on Wikipedia certainly doesn't mean they don't exist. It simply means they aren't notable. There is nothing in WP:CORP to support the position that a company is notable because they have had a notable band on their roster. --JD554 (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about what WP:CORP says. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's obvious that JD554 knew that and just brought it up to show that your comments go against the guidelines. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 03:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Guidelines specifically spell out that they're not inviolable, but are "best treated with common sense and the occasional exception". Both of which pertain here. Bearcat (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 12:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited. A famous person must have had both a mother and father, but that doesn't mean we need articles about those people just because their son/daughter became notable.  No, the fact that the band is notable does NOT mean the label producing their music is also notable.Theseeker4 (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A person can become notable without their parents being directly involved in their careers. A record label, however, is inseparable from a band's notability, because the record label is the conduit by which the band became notable. It's like saying that a television show can become notable by airing on a non-notable television network: it's objectively impossible, because the television show's notability is wholly dependent on the network that airs it, just as a band's notability is wholly dependent on the record label that distributes its music. It isn't about "inherited" notability; it's about the fact that it's flatly impossible for a record label to be non-notable if its affiliated artists are notable, because the record label is the venue that made the artists' notability possible. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It is non-notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 01:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, film companies that produce notable films get deleted in AFD because there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. How is that any different? Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 01:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And the TV show and notable channel comparison is stupid because all notable channels has significant coverage in reliable sources unlike this record label. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 05:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not so; it is possible, and in fact quite common, for a TV channel to have absolutely no significant coverage about it as a topic in its own right, but to get coverage only in the sense of being briefly mentioned in coverage about its individual programs. In fact, more television channels fall into that boat than not. Bearcat (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep One of the criteria of WP:MUSIC is that a band with a notable member is notable too (which is an explicit case in which notability is inherited) Since labels are also in the music industry, I think there's a good case to extend this to labels having notable bands on their roster. The real problem here is whether the information in the article is verifiable . - Mgm|(talk) 12:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:MUSIC should have nothing to do with it. WP:CORP is the relevant guideline. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 03:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:MUSIC has everything to do with a record label. Bearcat (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Then why does WP:MUSIC not mention record labels in the first line: This page provides a guideline of how the concept of notability applies to topics related to music, including artists and bands, albums, and songs. I suspect that's because a record label is a business and therfore falls within the scope of WP:CORP. --JD554 (talk) 10:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Would you vote keep if there was only one notable band? Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 01:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * One is all it takes, so yes. Bearcat (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think WP:CORP outweighs WP:MUSIC when it comes to record labels. In fact, the only part of WP:MUSIC that addresses labels is this: "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." which contradicts Bearcat's interpretation of what makes a label notable.   PK  T (alk)  16:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: PKT is correct and I was reminded of this in a previous nomination of another label. WP:CORP is more relevant than WP:MUSIC, with music companies/record labels. Label doesn't appear to have siginificant independent 3rd sources. JamesBurns (talk) 05:22, 10 January 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.