Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crescent 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) 00:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crescent Records

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

Record label, who may have had some notable artists (none listed in the body of article, however as Infrogmation points out one is listed in a picture narrative.), 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) 13:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Kid Ory is already in the article (clearly the "none listed" claim above is false); even if no one else had recorded for the label I think that the Ory recordings would have been enough for notability. Shellac 78 era company. Infrogmation (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but Kid Ory is listed in the narrative of a picture - NOT in the body of the article. Codf1977 (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is the proposing editor serious in suggesting that a label founded by Nesuhi Ertegun and featuring Kid Ory and Jelly Roll Morton is not notable in itself?--Technopat (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes setting aside all the WP:Inherited claims - the question is does it meet either the WP:GNG and WP:ORG and as I cant find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject I am forced to conclude that it is not notable in it's own right. I am willing to change my mind if significant coverage comes to light. Codf1977 (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now that I've added a little context and a reference. Lupo 14:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is still lacking significant coverage in reliable sources though. Codf1977 (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just added the first link. But you can find the same text in the Rock'n'roll hall of fame, or at encyclopedia.com. If you consider any of these "more reliable", feel free to supply one of these as the reference for this article. Lupo 15:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry did not mean to imply either of them were not Reliable sources - I just coped and pasted the source from the WP:GNG. Codf1977 (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is one of those rare instances where I decide to recognize that the GNG is a guideline, and not a policy. There is every reason to expect this article to be lacking in easily-available online sources, and at least one source now exists that lets the article pass the verifiable test. Insofar as it now passes verifiability (a policy), I'm more than willing to let it slide on GNG (a guideline) given its clear and inextricable association with some very notable names in jazz. Normally, I'm very much a fan of GNG and am rather strict in adherence to it, but exceptions have to be made if and when exceptions appear warranted and, to my eyes, this is one of those cases where an exception is very called for. Keep. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is pretty famous: [1]. Getting this one deleted was a bad idea. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep long history, notable founder, notable artists. Not sure what else one could expect from a record label, really. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:12, 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.