Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timezone 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. Kurykh (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Timezone Records

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Alleged to be a non-notable music group, however the article is a decent stub and there are some links to other subject related pages on site. I therefore feel an afd would be better suited to resolve the credibility issue. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * keepThe article has sources and meets the criteria for stub. The article fills 50+ redlinks and has articles on other wikipedia's. Therefor I believe its notable. Ed Lane (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * 1) What do you mean by "The article fills 50+ redlinks"? I assumed you meant that there were more than 50 redlinks to the title before you created the article, but I have checked, and there is a grand total of four other articles that link to Timezone Records, three of which do so because you added links after creating the article Timezone Records. Unless I have missed something, that means that there was one redlink to the article. However, even if there were 100 redlinks to it, that would merely show that someone has posted links to it on Wikipedia, which would be no evidence whatever of notability, since anyone can post links to Wikipedia articles, and it is far from uncommon for people to come and spam hundreds of links.
 * 2) You say "The article has sources", but I wonder what you understand by the word "sources". The only thing in the article that could possibly be regarded as a source is a link to Timezone's own web site, http://www.timezone-records.com.
 * 3) The fact that a topic has articles on other Wikipedias is no evidence of notability, both because other Wikipedias sometimes have different inclusion standards, and because on any Wikipedia there are likely to be many articles which there shouldn't be: see WP:OTHERSTUFF. I can also find only one article on this subject on one other Wikipedia, namely de::Timezone (Musiklabel), and the external links in that article don't come within a thousand miles of being the sort of coverage required to establish notability under English Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 11:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)




 * Delete - nothing I could say that JamesB hasn't already.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 08:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails to establish WP:N. red dogsix (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2014 (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.