Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skene! 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 no consensus. There are valid arguments for deletion as well as inclusion. However, there is no clear consensus to support either. The article can always be renominated in the future. (non-admin closure)  Ya  sh  !   02:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Skene! Records

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seemingly non-notable and unimprovable article with my searches finding nothing better than this and there aren't even any signs confirming this label still exists and lastly this article has existed the same since starting in February 2007 (hardly changed much since then too). Pinging interested users, and. SwisterTwister  talk  06:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator, but I don't know why I was summoned. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I notice you comment at these articles as is the case with Michig so I thought I would give you an early ping. Cheers,  SwisterTwister   talk  07:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The label is defunct, but that's ultimately immaterial to its notability. I think this label manages to meet the closest thing we have to a relevant guideline for record labels, which is the part in WP:MUSIC about what constitutes "one of the more important indie labels" - that it is "an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable." Skene released records from Green Day, Shades Apart, Lifter Puller, Trenchmouth, Jawbreaker, Actionslacks, and Crimpshrine, all of which are independently notable and most of which had lasting impacts on the 1990s alternative and punk scenes. There's some fluff and stories which ought to be excised from the article, but the basic skeleton - the factual information about its founding and location, and its roster of artists - is readily verifiable. Chubbles (talk) 04:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * However, where is the better improvement including the better sourcing, ? SwisterTwister   talk  05:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. I have spent enough time cleaning up articles to save them; please don't presume that I will continue to volunteer my time in this way. Chubbles (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Berliner Gramophone no longer exists either, but it is notable. Skene is important to the history of Green Day, and released records by several other notable bands.  This can be confirmed by a cursory Google Books search.  As such it is "one of the more important indie labels" under NMUSIC #5.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 14:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: It helps to do more open searches, e.g. like Skene Records Minneapolis or Skene "Jeff Spiegel", and I have added what I could find: it's all passing mention. The comparison with another defunct label, Berliner Gramophone, whose notability has not been questioned is a WP:WAX argument. Both Keep votes assumably quote WP:MUSICBIO #5, but that criteria is for musicians and ensembles, not record labels; they fall under WP:CORP, and this one fails. Sam Sailor Talk! 05:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised this argument keeps cropping up every once in a while. As I have long argued, it is inappropriate to judge labels according to business criteria; musicological and pop-cultural subject experts ought to decide their notability. Bands are businesses, too, but we do not judge them according to WP:CORP. Chubbles (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Empty Assertion of notability: "what matters is the existence of reliable, secondary sources that are entirely independent of the topic that have published detailed content about it, regardless of the present state of the article." Please add them. Sam Sailor Talk! 17:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. The label has a proven impact upon musical culture by developing and distributing art, as proven by the multiple notable groups.  The label existed pre-internet, or at best just to the very earliest days of the WWW.  As such sources are likely offline, but are aslo likely to exist.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 18:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added sources and find that subject is not notable. WP:PAPERONLY is a possibility, but until any of the Keep !voters add them, claims like "proven impact upon musical culture" is based purely on a WP:MUST assumption, and that's just not good enough per WP:V. - Sam Sailor Talk! 15:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Defunct but notable. warpozio (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSNOTABLE is in and by itself not an argument for keep. Sam Sailor Talk! 17:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 22:03, 22 November 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.