Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Craft 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 redirect‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Pud Brown. Liz Read! Talk! 22:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

West Craft Records

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

(proceduarlly declined PROD) Label so obscure its Discogs page has two attributed releases. I strongly disagree with the previous de-prod rationale that offline sources may exist; nothing indicating that popped up on newspapers.com or the Google news archive. Moreover, many, many short-lived jazz labels came up in the late 40s and early 50s, too many for the music press to cover all of them, and the ability for one of them to sign one or two notable musicians for possibly less than a year does not indicate that coverage is likely to exist. Mach61 (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies,  and California. Mach61 (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Pud Brown, I'm guessing these are self-released by him. Probably covered by jazzfan magazines of the time, but I doubt coverage would be of the label, it would be of the releases, which really isn't independent of the artist. If sources for these releases can be found they can be added to the artist's article, and should coverage of the label somehow be found there's nothing lost (that would have to be re-built) by redirecting except "sky is blue" prose. I'm normally loathe to have coverage of 78rpm labels removed, because truly most of the available coverage has not been digitized, but the nom has it right on this one.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 16:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.