Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sbrigyn Ymborth


 * 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. There is a weak consensus, but there is consensus for deletion due to lacking notablity. One of the two keeps is weak, and another one is strong, but uses the argument which is counter to policy and has been refuted.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Sbrigyn Ymborth

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems an almost clear case of non-notability of this new-ish, rather obscure North Wales music label. I can't see anything obvious in the way of reliable news coverage about the label and they have only one barely notable band on their books. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 12:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - It seems like another case of a label that has not received considerable news coverage or even something close to a substitute of news coverage. News searches provided nothing and searches at North Wales newspapers provided nothing as well. Considering Cowbois Rhos Botwnnog seems to have released alot of their albums on this label, I would have suggested a redirect but there's little to mention there either. No prejudice towards a future article should they become notable. SwisterTwister   talk  19:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 07:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Very Weak Keep Signed notable band.  Allmusic has a page on the label .  There is quite a bit of Google activity, although mostly blogs and press releases, and of course the dozens of Wikipedia mirrors.  There are a couple of pages in Welsh of which I am unable to verify reliability, to say nothing of significant coverage.    78.26   (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 16:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as per  78.26  ; Notability is sound; received national coverage by sponsering a tour of  Patagonia in Golwg on-line magazine. They certainly are not a "new-ish" label: 7 years in modern music terms is an eternity! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 03:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As you must surely know, that article is about the band, not their record label in any sense at all. Sionk (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As you must surely have read, I said 'sponsered' the band, and did not 'in any sense' suggest otherwise. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Sponsered a band' = 'Strong keep', tsk, I've seen it all now! Sionk (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete After seven years, a music label should be able to generate at least one article in a reliable source about it, and not the bands it promotes. The best I've been able to find, however, is a bare database listing in a database of companies run by women. The "tour of Patagonia" article linked above is about the band and not about the label.  Both the general notability guidelines and the music notability guidelines ask for more than the mere passing mentions available for this label. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:23, 9 December 2013 (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.