Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zodiac 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 to delete, default to keep. Consensus appears to be that an improved version of the article would be kept. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 04:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Zodiac Records
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Although this is a disambiguation page, none of the listed record labels seem notable in the slightest. There aren't even external links for all of the labels listed.
 * Delete none of the companies mentioned seem to pass WP:CORP. The article with its current external links seems to function more as a sneaky advert for the swiss company (though I'm guessing that is probably unintentional). Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as written, Keep if rewritten. At present, the article is either (a) a faux-disambiguation page which doesn't actually point to any articles, or (b) a sneaky excuse to cram in an external link or two.  However, there was an undeniably notable 70s Chicago soul label of that name we certainly can/should have an article on (they had a number of chart hits and sourcing should be easy).  I might try rewriting it before the end of AfD if I can find the time, otherwise I may just make a new article later. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I tend to think of as adiquately notable any company that succeeded in mass producing records in the era of the shellac 78rpm disc, as that was a technological and economic achievement at the time, hardly as easy as starting a "record label" more recently. Giving information on such historic companies is an encyclopedic endevour. Old record companies is a specialist topic of interest to more than a few people, and over the years I've seen several Wikipedia record company articles going from similar sketchy starts to informative fleshed out articles thanks to additional research. Some of the other more recent "Zodiac" companies also mentioned here may not be notable on their own, but a passing mention to disambiguate is of potential use and no harm IMO.  If Wikipedia's coverage of a topic is poor, it should be improved or at least not made worse and prevented from any chance of improvement by removal of such information as we have. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete People seem to be attributing their own standards of notability to this article. The companies have not even claimed to meet notablity guidelines. It can always be recreated when someone has got the time. This is a clear delete for now however. 92.4.63.157 (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The user 92.4.63.157 submitted the AfD, see here. I don't think you can have two votes. Tassedethe (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As unregistered users don't get to complete the nomination process, I didn't think the nomination would count as my vote, would it? 92.4.63.157 (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As WP:NOTDEMOCRACY raw votes don't really count, my comment was just to make it clear - sometimes AfD will only attract a few comments. I think nomination for AfD is clear vote for deletion :) Tassedethe (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I know WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, I just thought the merit of my comment was really important. Shoulda put it as a comment really, sorry. 92.4.63.157 (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  20:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article requires editing, not deletion, to satisfy all of the concerns listed.  There is nothing patently wrong with the subject of the article as far as I can tell. There is no deadline.  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 03:12, 29 July 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.