Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eclipse 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eclipse Records

Sources all from the company website, not from independent entities. It sort of looks like an advertisement. Spring12 (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - These pages of non-notable record companies are used later to assert notability for obscure artists. It's never a good sign when the first hit in a gsearch is your MySpace blog. §FreeRangeFrog 03:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear what sort of research was done to determine the notability of this record company, which has a number of blue-linked artists on its roster. An absence of references currently on the article is not a reason for deletion. I searched and found a number of non-trivial references in newspapers and magazines, and have added the citations to the article just now. There are more out there. Keep, since it meets the general notability guideline's requirement of multiple independent sources. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that the company itself is notable. Blue linked artist articles are nice but notability isn't inherited. What makes this company notable? This article doesn't tell us. The name makes google searching for references difficult.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's possible that you might be conflating importance with notability. The article does not need to "tell us" what makes it important. The NPOV way to determine notability is to see its non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources, which this subject has. The record label has been discussed not just in articles about some of its bands' signings but also in some articles about "small labels". Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability standards apply to articles, not all articles except those on record labels. Articles should establish, preferably in the opening paragraph, what makes the subject of the article notable. Existence and relationship to notable articles little to establish notability.--Rtphokie (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _Talk Islander 01:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm pretty sure that this article could use a rewrite to make encyclopedic, but still...as per FreeRangeFrog. Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 01:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - there are some fairly respectable sources, trade magazines, etc. covering this. I think it has potential for improvement. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 10:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment which references? covering what? There are references covering artists on this label but those references belong in those artists' articles and do little to establish notability in this article.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The widely-circulated New Jersey newspaper; the widely-circulated Ohio newspaper; the widely-circulated Washington newspaper; and the widely-circulated American music magazine. All seem to confer some notability IMO, but it was only a weak keep as we don't have specific access to those specific articles online so I can't "vet" them. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 21:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this label is not sufficiently notable (see WP:CORP) so as to permit any artist who has released two albums on it to be intrinsically notable as per WP:MUSIC. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've now removed the overtly promotional material in the article, added some context to the lead as per Rtphokie's suggestion, and added some more content from the articles in The Record and in Billboard. Given the coverage in multiple publications, including at a national level, and that it is not merely trivial or incidental coverage, I'm of the opinion that the subject meets the primary criteria of WP:CORP. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:08, 4 March 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.