Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audiobulb Records

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 per consensus. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Audiobulb Records

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

Audiobulb 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)
  • Keep The fact that there are no articles on albums released by Audiobulb is not really relevant - some labels are not principally album-driven, and album articles are pinged off of this site with alarming frequency anyway. The artist question is more relevant, and (at least) three notable artists is maybe not enough on its own, but it's getting there. What pushes me over is coverage - the material from Cyclic Defrost, Headphone Commute, NowThen, and this from Igloo is enough to make the difference. Chubbles (talk) 13:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that the owner David Newman, a musician, has been interviewed in several publication, and mentions his record company in passing during those interviews does not consist of
    WP:SIGCOV. User:Chubbles's statement "three notable artists is maybe not enough on its own, but it's getting there" pushes me to vote delete because this company is clearly not ready for a Wikipedia page yet. The deletion of a Wikipedia page doesn't mean a subject is blocked for life; it just means that they have not achieved the notability required to warrant a Wikipedia page at this time. Once the company grows, they may be eligible for a new Wikipedia page.--Fanofblackened (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Also pointed out above is the fact that the company's owner David Newman has been interviewed a number of times, but the focus of those interviews was on his band (or solo project) Autistici. Examples like the already mentioned Cyclic Frost interview Link and the Textura interview Link are perfect examples. They only mention Audiobulb in passing. Maybe Newman, as an artist, warrants a Wikipedia page (in which case a Redirect could be placed on Audiobulb Records), but his company does not in my opinion. I'm also taking into consideration that this article was created by Newman himself in 2006 (16 years ago) and the company has yet to gain any additional notability or significant coverage. 16 years is a long time to "get there" and it probably shouldn't have been accepted on Wikipedia to begin with.--OrangeZestAir (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This one fails
    WP:NOTABILITY
    . A record label needs more than a few interviews to achieve notability and be recognized as important or encyclopedic. I'm basing my vote on the following:
1. Not a single mention of the company on Newspapers.com or The British Newspaper Archive.
2. A mere 4 results show up on the Internet Archive, none of which offer
WP:SIGCOV
. 2 of them are listings of hundreds of record labels (Audiobulb has a small mention, or rather listing as one of them), 1 is a mention of the label in the thanklist of a Various Artists compilation released by another record label, and the last is some kind of DVD with no preview that was released by another company. Nothing here validates the notability of this company.
3. No results on ISNI, VIAF, LOC, WorldCat IDs or British National Archives (it is a British record label). While this is not uncommon for small record labels, ones of any stature would have some sort of results in there, direct or indirect. WorldCat proper only lists a single release held somewhere (though the library or archive is not listed, so it could have been a manual, non-physical entry); it appears to be a Various Artists compilation released by Audiobulb. This company boasts having released over 100 releases, yet nothing is held in national archives, libraries or databases? That, to me, is a clear sign of lacking notability.
4. The article is written with
WP:CoI
. The article offers little interlinking to other Wikipedia articles other than the three bands brought up in the deletion request; no releases (be it album, EP, single, compilation, live or VA) have their own Wikipedia pages, and that would have been another good way to judge its notability. If the record label has not released anything of significance, then how can it be significant itself? I do not see this company as notable, important or encyclopedic.
WikiGuruWanaB (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete Leaving aside the tone of the article, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of this organisation, fails NCORP
    HighKing++ 18:58, 4 February 2022 (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/Audiobulb_Records&oldid=1069947451"