Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RCRD LBL


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 03:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

RCRD LBL

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

Questionable notability per WP:CORP. Most of the article is a long list of "Notable artists" on this "exclusively-online record label that offers all of its music for free via Mp3 downloads". Two citations given, one from the NY Post and the other seems to be a blog about a press release and another article on the subject. If this does pass the "Notability" screening here the article needs expansion to make it read less like a promo piece and the list should really be reduced in size Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete as per nom. ~ Pip 2  andahalf  05:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems thin. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - please do some homework before nominating articles for deletion. I agree that the references are currently a little thin, but just based on the notability of the bands on this label, and the hits in legitimate, international news sources should warrant this page to be kept. For example: Wall Street Journal, The Independent, The New York Post, and Rolling Stone. (Fulmerg (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC))
 * Comment: I did do my "homework" and that is why the AfD is worded as it is. I did a search and came back with a lot of hits as well - brief mentions, press releases, reprinted and rewritten press releases all about the launch of the service. The Rolling Stone link above is not "significant coverage" of the subject at all, it is barley a blip in the article as a one line mention of the intention so start the service. The link to The Independent is not much better as it is an article about online services that is only a listing of services, including this site which says it has an "impressive array of free music from new and established artists." I already mentioned the others - the NY Post is a "Significant" article, but it is about the "plan to launch" the site, not an article about how the last year has gone. The WSJ is the same type of pre launch article and makes the observation that "It is unclear, for instance, whether music fans will view as credible a blog that exists largely to promote its own commercial products" and that is my part of the reason I brought the article to AfD. RCRD LBL has been "available" and it has been a little over a year since the pre-launch hype and I could not find any significant coverage of the label to meet WP:CORP. We can take this in another direction as well - is this "blog" notable per Notability (web)? Criteria 1, except already disallows the above Rolling Stone and Independent articles. Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. At least one good source already in the article, and Fulmerg has come up with more. It does need expanding, and the sources appear to exist to allow that.--Michig (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll expand this if the vote is extended to keep the page.(Fulmerg (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC))
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   —Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - notability established the usual way. No need to deviate from usual practice here, that I can see. Wily D  12:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Since the article has been tagged there has been no work done to it. It should be noted that this article was created February 15, 2008 and other than acts being added to the list of "notable artists" there has been no substantial work done or notes/refs added. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The key thing here is that sources found above show that the article can be improved to an acceptable standard and Fulmerg has stated that they will improve the article if the result of this discussion is to keep it.--Michig (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: No, the key thing here is that the sources cited have already been used and the ones not used can not be used. The key thing here is that we have an article that is about, to quote one of the sources, a "blog that exists largely to promote its own commercial products" that has had almost zero "significant coverage" past pre-launch hype. The idea is to try and expand an article when it is tagged and then when an AfD discussion is happening. To simply come into a discussion and voice a "keep" because a quick search on Google turns up hits without actually reading those "hits"  defeats the entire reason we have Policies and Guidelines. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are at least 3 good sources giving significant coverage to the subject. That's enough to have an article here. I'm well aware of policies and guidelines, and have read the sources - I'm not sure where you got the idea that I just did a quick search and didn't read any of the results. I think you needs to spend some time reading and, more importantly, understanding the policies and guidelines here, both on deletion processes (and the work that should be done before nominating an article for deletion), notability, reliable sources, and last but not least, civility.--Michig (talk) 08:49, 15 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.