Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern Art Records (2nd nomination)


 * 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 02:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Modern Art Records
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This record label was deleted via afd (and a few speedies), yet User:Eastmain removed the latest speedy tag stating that "CSD-G4 doesn't apply because the article now has a reference from a newspaper in Phoenix". Assuming that's correct Wikipedia policy and assuming that the Phoenix article was not in the original deleted article, the article nevertheless should be deleted again. The small mention in the online blog section of a Phoenix newspaper is a far cry from the significant coverage required by Notability.  brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Phoenix newspaper coverage is significant, and here's an article about a notable band who records on the label: http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/breakenter/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003823020 -- Eastmain (talk) 02:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As a Phoenician, the Phoenix New Times is a bit more like an entertainment-activity paper. It's not like The Arizona Republic. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 03:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that's cool. I never knew people from Phoenix are called "Phoenicians". Is it pronounced fo-nee-see-ens?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: that is irrelevant. If it is professionally published in a major market, it is non-trivial and it's an NPOV violation to dismiss a source simply because of its subject matter (especially when the subject matter happens to be relevant to the topic of the article). That said I am withhold opinion on whether I feel the article is viable until I investigate further. 23skidoo (talk) 06:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The 'coverage' of this very small company does not establish its notability--it's not even 'newspaper coverage,' it's three sentences on a newspaper's online blog. That's not in-depth, to say the least; it's not even significant. In fact, here it is: "Believe it or not, there are a handful of excellent indie record labels in the great state of Arizona, boasting rosters with some of our finest local artists and some hot underground national acts, as well. [Deleted list of bands.] This week, we'd like to give a shout-out to Modern Art Records.Why they’re hot: Modern Art is an Epic imprint, which means wider distribution. Back Ted-N-Ted played some highly-praised shows at SxSW this year. Rolling Stone named Miniature Tigers one of the 25 best bands on MySpace." That's it. And even if that article on Billboard helps The Medic Droid's case (which it well might), that doesn't transfer notability onto the label. I appreciate's Eastmain's rescue efforts, but in my opinion it's not enough. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Drmies. Not enough coverage to give it notability. Themfromspace (talk) 09:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep.I understand that you don't seem to want to recognize an established publication, for some reason. But it's just an article to start the information. There's a front page cover story being published in the coming weeks detailing everything you're naysaying about the label, if you can leave it until then this could probably be resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcglestacius (talk • contribs) 18:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * — Mcglestacius (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * delete wether or not Phoenix New Times is established or notable or reliable, the coverage there of Modern Art Records is trivial. Subject lacks multiple non trivial coverage in reliable sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2008 (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.