Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Post War Blues


 * 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 keep. John254 00:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The Post War Blues

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability on Google. I also can't find any sources on Google News and Google Books. Fails WP:CORP. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 23:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Just added a few facts to the article for all those Wikipedia notability fans out there not knowing too much about blues, its artists, labels and publications and instead seem to believe in the Google God ("Wer Wahrheit sucht, darf nicht die Stimmen zählen" Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, 1646–1716 (My translation: Who seeketh truth might not tally votes ;-) StefanWirz (talk) 16:39, 20 December 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) 00:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

 C'mon boys (and girls?) - What about a hefty notability discussion !?! Or do I have to wait until you're all sitting in front of your screen at your working place again not knowing what else to do with your hours of work ;-) StefanWirz (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: agree with nominator. JamesBurns (talk) 02:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Would you please take into account that the article has been heavily expanded in order to eludicate the notability of that label since the nominator did his nomination ... StefanWirz (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  Aitias   // discussion 00:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as no evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Did I read somewhere that Afd-nominated articles should be discussed (even thoroughly discussed), not only voted pro or con ?!? The article now contains 1. a discography, 2. a list of that label's roster of artists, eight of them being notable enough to have an own Wikipedia article (blue links), 3. hints on liner notes by (at least two) notable authors (Paul Oliver, Charles Radcliffe), 4. two references (reviews) stating the notability of the label's output - one by a worldwide accepted blues authority (Keith Briggs). Don't know what else might be lacking to prove 'notability' ! StefanWirz (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. The article is very poorly written, but that alone isn't a reason for deletion. A google search revealed enough information to suggest that the organization exists but I'm not totally convinced of its notability. Trusilver  01:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I had to add the founders name to the search but found these four books which should help explain the man, the label and their mission. Blues players are well-known for not being well-known. Many have existed and died making only those who bought rights to their music rich. this seems to be a piece of that lost puzzle showing someone who tried to help document the art form. This, this, this and this might also help. -- Banj e  b oi   02:23, 30 December 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.