Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cavity Search Records

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 (narrowly, almost no consensus, but they're largely the same result anyways). Daniel (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cavity Search Records

edit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Cavity Search Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:NCORP and it is significantly a prominence building attempt through public relations effort, thus WP:TNT is relevant. 75.5% of authorship can be attributable to blocked sockmaster MusicLover650's sock Earflaps, and WP:SPAsMgretchh Capobw49, Carolinerubin and an IP that links to the same geographical area as the company, 2601:1C2:700:D0E0:7844:583D:4AB7:80AC Graywalls (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: had AUD meeting coverage in the book Shooting Star: The Definitive Story of Elliott Smith, and a bunch of GNG-qualifying coverage in Portland news. Mach61 (talk) 06:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There must to be at least one regional or national coverage per WP:AUD to satisfy NORG, but should be multiple. "Portland news" is local. Graywalls (talk) 07:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as how there isn't a suitable merge target for this page, I think the bare minimum in meeting AUD, and very easily meeting GNG should be enough to justify keeping the article. Mach61 (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources are you speaking of that meets independent significant coverage in broadly circulated media? Please link them. Graywalls (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oregonian (Newsbank paywall) Vortex magazine. That's three sources with significant coverage of the label, including the book. Mach61 (talk) 02:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with @Graywalls and the arguments made in support of deletion. Go4thProsper (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Above editors have shown the article likely passes the GNG and it meets WP:MUSIC's sense of one of the more important labels (which is no suprise, given that it was once Elliott Smith's label); a NCORP pass isn't required here, so that's plenty. The COI editing has no impact on the notability argument, and if the nice tidy discography table is courtesy of affiliated persons...we should be so lucky as to have such COI editing. Chubbles (talk) 02:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Other than bands and ensembles, there's nothing in notability guidelines suggesting N:MUSIC is relevant for music related groups. Record labels are a company whose products just happen to be music related. Graywalls (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cavity_Search_Records&oldid=1189404693"