Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pacific 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Pacific Records

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Bit of an odd one this: the article was originally created regarding a 1970s division of Warner Bros. Records, but since 2006 the article has been re-written to include an entirely different Pacific Records set up in the 1990s, so the article now discusses two separate record companies, and the distinction is not made entirely clear. At the very least, these should be two entirely separate articles with disambiguators, but I am struggling to find reliable independent sources that discuss either subject in detail, and I am wondering if either record label is worth keeping. The 1970s record company's notability seems to rest almost entirely on a Billboard Hot 100 no. 1 single, "Undercover Angel" by Alan O'Day, but this inherited notability isn't enough to have a separate article about the record label and it fails WP:CORP. The 1990s version also appears to fail WP:CORP, with just [http://www.sdnews.com/view/full_story/27207139/article-Pacific-Records--Brian-Witkin-keeps-local-music-rockin-? this article in a local newspaper]: of the four artists bluelinked in the article, two are incorrect links to entirely different Wikipedia subjects, the sole chart entry by Sprung Monkey was on the Billboard Alternative Songs chart and not the Hot 100, as you might think from first impressions, and the Steven Ybarra article has been flagged for WP:COI. Richard3120 (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per nom. Neither of the record labels covered by this article appears to have enough independent coverage in reliable sources to warrant an article. In any event, they should not be combined into a single article; they are separate companies with no direct relationship and should be covered, if at all, in separate articles. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. North America1000 04:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - The most important "Pacific Records" was the French jazz label from the 1940s/1950s. That said, this should be two articles, not one.  Both labels are likely notable because they had significant, if short-lived, chart success, and neither are "vanity" labels, so they can't be merged into any artist page.  The prose for the more modern of the two is unambiguously promotional, and if someone speedied it for G11 I wouldn't really squawk.  The second is barely a one-line stub, and if someone came from Alan O'Day's page, they wouldn't really learn anything they didn't probably know.  In it's current state, none of it is sourced.  I'm not going to !vote because I'm ambiguous about deleting this. I do think both labels are probably notable, but there's so little here worth keeping.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 20:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit dubious as to how "significant" the 1990s Pacific Records is – one song that reached no. 13 on the Billboard Alternative Songs chart (not the Hot 100) doesn't seem particularly significant to me. Richard3120 (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: if this survives the deletion discussion I will split the article into two, as they should be – perhaps then it will be easier to judge each one on its own merits and decide whether they should stay. Richard3120 (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good.   78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 17:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Additional comment: in fact some further investigation shows that not only was the one hit by Sprung Monkey on the Billboard Alternative Songs chart and not the main Hot 100 chart, it was released on Surfdog Records, not Pacific Records. So now I would say there isn't a single reason for the 1990s Pacific Records to have an article, as there is no evidence of notability at all either for the label or for any of its artists. Richard3120 (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Good work. I hadn't had a chance to look into this deeply yet.  Yeah, that makes sense given this charted in 1998, and Pacific signed Sprung Monkey in 2015, according to the article body.  I've done a bit more digging, and there's no discernible reliable coverage I can find, so I will in fact be !voting.  next.


 * Delete - the piece is highly promotional towards the recent California label, this label does not have a length of history, nor does it have a significant roster of notable artists. Per Richard3120's investigation, the label has also not had a nationally charted hit.  I found no coverage beyond the very local.  The 1970s version of Pacific Records is probably notable, but there's nothing sourced and so little information provided that it's not worth keeping, if someone wants to start an article on that label, they would just as well start from scratch.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 21:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly an advertorial. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This qualifies for a WP:TNT. Neither seems notable enough and the article certainly mixes up two different companies. Starting this from scratch (if at all someone can prove it is really notable), is the way to go. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:56, 23 September 2016 (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.