Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OWSLA


 * 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 * The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 01:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

OWSLA

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Almost every single area is unsourced or poorly sourced, and multiple IPs have been closely related to the article, constantly adding unsourced and unlisted artists to the roster, as well as adding unsourced albums to the Releases section. The article also does not follow the guidelines set by WP:RECORD LABEL. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong keep — No way an article this notable and this in-depth should just be straight-up deleted. Reform is what it needs and if you believe it needs to go in another direction then why not help out yourself rather than resorting to this? Also, how does the fact that one IP has been doing controversial editing have anything to do with the page's deletion? If you're trying to suggest that it's one person doing all the contribution then check the history, this article has had tens of users' time and effort devoted to it on a regular basis (to ensure that the unreliable stuff does get dealt with). -- ItsLuke (contribs) 18:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to point out that the WP:RECORD LABELS page you linked only discusses style and templates, neither of which the OWSLA page has a problem with. Did you add the wrong link by accident? -- ItsLuke (contribs) 18:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think an tag would have been more appropriate than a deletion discussion. The onslaught of IPs is pretty normal for a page with this many daily hits (regularly over 300, which is high for a label), and their additions are perfectly manageable with the tools we have available. Earflaps (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. widely distributed label with not a few, but many notable signed artists, therefore this label has a discernible impact on music culture.   78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 15:45, 2 June 2015 (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.