Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aux Sable 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article does not demonstrate if Aux Sable Records makes the WP:CORP notability bar. ASR appears to be an independent label that "inherits" its notability from one act, Victorian Halls. Other ASR acts are nominally covered by at best (Emma Tringali, a ASR artist, has an article here that is up for AfD). There is appears no notability for this company on its own. B.Wind (talk) 08:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lack of notability per nom and article was obviously created to support the Emma Tringali one, which is also up for AfD and also fails WP:MUSIC anyway. Maybe later. §FreeRangeFrog 19:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no significant 3rd party sources WP:CORP. JamesBurns (talk) 06:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. No reliable, third-party, sources.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 10:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Trying to keep this article alive: I created this page. Although there are no online articles speaking directly about the label, there are legitimate articles regarding artists on the label, and instead of making 'stubs' about each band, this was created, for the time being, to keep everything in one ___location. Since the label has been expanding recently they've been told by their contact at the Chicago Tribune that they will be running a feature on Aux Sable Records in the next month or two to showcase the expansion and the new acts on the label. I am upset to see that FreeRangeFrog would say that the Aux Sable Records page was "Obviously created to support the Emma Tringali one" when it is obvious by looking at the history of each page that the Aux Sable Records page was created several months before the Emma Tringali page. Emma Tringali is indeed an artist who recently signed to the label, but their Wikipedia page is 100% independent of Aux Sable Records' (see contributors to each). If this page must be taken down until Aux Sable Records gets more press coverage, I can understand. Wikipedia can't have page after page of nonsense to stay reputable, and from an outsiders view, I suppose Aux Sable Records may not have much third party evidence of true existence. I just want it to be known that I put a lot of time and effort into creating this page for Wikipedia and to include as many sources as I could. It isn't trying to advertise itself, and it is not profane or insulting to anyone. It is simply trying to give a place for people to go to research what Aux Sable Records is without fully relying on the information on auxsablerecords.com. If it is decided that this Wikipedia page be taken down, I would like to be able to easily revert it to it's present condition once it has more press directly mentioning the label itself. I honestly hope that this page may remain online, but understand if it absolutely cannot.(PepsiIsbad) 04:38, 9, February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment My apologies for the hasty comment, I saw both articles on the same set of for-deletion-articles and I assumed they were created in tandem, which is quite common, believe it or not. Having said that, no one doubts you put a lot of effort into creating the page, the problem, as you correctly state, is that your record company does not meet the guidelines for notability. Many people follow the 'userify' route when this happens - meaning that you place the article text under your own user page and work on it until such time as it can pass muster notability-wise, at which point you simply re-create it on the main 'namespace' where normal articles go. I can empathize with your intention to have a separate ___location where people can obtain information about the company, however that's also a problem as Wikipedia is not a web host or repository for companies' information. If and when you are able to establish notability, no one will object to including the article in the encyclopedia, believe me. For example once you are mentioned in national media, one of your artists charts, etc. Until then though, my opinion that both articles be deleted stands, and you will find most other editors will have the same stance, because they are based on clear guidelines, not personal feelings. Good luck! §FreeRangeFrog 03:42, 9 February 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.