Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Orleans 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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Orleans Records

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Creator restored after CSD this record label, who may have had some notable artists (none listed), is not it's self notable. (see WP:Inherited) - Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG as it has not had significant coverage of it's own. Un ref'ed since creation for over 6 years. Codf1977 (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

1) Shellac 78 record era company. I argue that record companies from this era tend to be notable in themselves, as making records in that era needed a considerable amount of industrial investment, quite unlike how easy it was to start what was called a "record company" in recent decades.
2)Important in the New Orleans traditional jazz revival era. If the New Orleans jazz revival is notable, this label is.
3) Notable musicians who Wikipedia has articles on recorded for label.

Infrogmation (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

1) reasons stated above by Infrogmation
2) just added discographical data including two notable artists who recorded on the "New Orleans" label: Johnny Wiggs and Herb Morand

StefanWirz (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per the rationale above. Wikipedia:Notability “is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.” It is not unreasonable to presume that there is not, as yet, much material available online for referencing the subject matter at hand, which in no way reduces its notability.--Technopat (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep When searching for book sources I primarily found short mentions in discographies and such, but there's plenty of it and it's reasonable to assume that some music press sources from the era aren't available online. I did manage to confirm that this existed at least from 1949 to 1978, and I just don't think a record company could last for 3 decades, especially in that era, without being at least somewhat notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:43, 14 June 2010 (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.