Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Your Choice 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. One two three... 03:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Choice Records

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected csp |username}}.

Your Choice Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Series of spammy articles on the label and a series of compilation albums put out by the label. All articles were created by the same editor (with some COI concerns) over the past few weeks with only minor edits by others. Not finding independent coverage in reliable sources of the company or these albums. Compilations rarely receive much interest from reviews though. Google hits are to CD sales sites. No indication of notability from the articles, just that they exist. RadioFan (talk) 12:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Your Choice Live Series Vol.03

Your Choice Live Series Vol.10

Your Choice Live Series Vol.12

Your Choice Live Series Vol.19

Your Choice Live Series Vol.20

Your Choice Live Series Vol.22

Your Choice Live Series Vol.25

Your Choice Live Series Vol.37

It's Your Choice - compilation

YCR - the 7 inches - compilation

• Keep at first glance this looks quite obscure, probably difficult to find traditional sources for, but the based on the roster and history this looks like an obvious keep. riffic (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

okay, here's what I got so far for sources: [1] , "Your+Choice+Live+Series"&ei=Z1MSSsKYO4WqlQSi5vTZCQ&client=news#PPA1009,M1 , "Your+Choice+Live+Series"&dq="Your+Choice+Live+Series"&ei=Z1MSSsKYO4WqlQSi5vTZCQ&client=news&pgis=1 , "Your+Choice+Live+Series"&dq="Your+Choice+Live+Series"&ei=Z1MSSsKYO4WqlQSi5vTZCQ&client=news&pgis=1 I need help putting these into proper citations in the article they cover, thanks riffic (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 14:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP the label article, as many notable bands have released albums on it. Make one or two sections for the compilations an other more notable releases in the main article. --Avant-garde a clue-
  ² 14:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Label is obscure for sure, but a non-exhaustive search of releases shows them all to be by noteworthy bands. Obscurity alone isn't enough to merit deletion. Hairhorn (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability of the bands doesn't transfer to the label.

WP:N insists on significant coverage in 3rd party sources to establish notability, so obscurity would be the problem here. --RadioFan (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Notability isn't inherited from the bands that recorded on it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ⁽Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, but - unless they're in the news or something - notability of a label is based largely on their release. So label roster is hardly irrelevant to notability. Hairhorn (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete label for failing to meet
  reliable, third-party, sources.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, releasing that many albums seems to be enough for notability.
  talk) 13:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• KEEP, the label did a great job by creating a special document of a special time in music history.
  Touch & Go Records. Sorry, but this actually feels very close to censorship to me! There should be better things do do in this world, so please help to KEEP!!! Grapes-taste (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment This user has been blocked indefinitely due to sockpuppetry.

• Keep and have a good time! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_More_Censorship Party diktator (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This user has been blocked temporarily due to sockpuppetry.

• Keep A record label is notable by how many notable bands it has signed. This one has plenty. Dream Focus 02:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all No indication that any of it meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability in any way. DreamGuy (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

have you looked at any of the book sources I posted up above, from google book search? these would indicate notability, would they not? riffic (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• friendly advice: search for sources not only under "your choice records" but also under "your choice live series"! Party diktator (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. These deletion discussions would be easier if good faith attempts at sourcing and assertions of notability weren't so quickly dismissed, and if articles weren't accused by nominators of being "spam". There's no reason why deletion nominations have to be so adversarial. If we can, we should save articles by making a real effort to find sources. The record label clearly does have *some* notability. The problem we have is whether the label is notable enough for an entry, and whether we can come up with adequate sourcing. For some background on the label, I dug an interview with a German fanzine out of the Internet Archive:[2] That might be some help in finding sourcing leads. Sourcing is understandably hard for a German label that ceased operations 6 years ago. I think we need more time for sourcing, and that the individual YCLS pages should be merged into this main one if it is kept. Fences and windows (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Shudder to think release on YCLS. Fences and windows (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2009 (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.