Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This Could Work 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 of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prod contested, seems like an AFD was attempted but never got closed and the AFD was removed from the article. Fails WP:CORP, WP:Music. NN. Delete Dbchip 05:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable record label with no media coverage. The only Google hits are to MySpace or Wikipedia. PROD contested. FCYTravis 20:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable corporation. nn unincorporated entity. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Could Work Records is not organized as a corporation and should not be considered under the corporate notability guidelines. --AlexWCovington (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- The subject matter is highly relevant to the North Dakota cultural scene, which has suffered from poor media coverage due to systemic biases that overlook smaller communities. Artists booked to the label will be completing tours in the United States this month, making them notable under WP:MUSIC; the label is similarly notable.

  The MySpace hits should not be discounted, but instead taken for what they are, an indication that This Could Work Records is slowly growing in relevance to social circles, enough so that Lonegunmun decided to register a Wikipedia account to start an article on it. --AlexWCovington (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The systemic bias of ignoring a "record label" with 13 MySpace hits? Maybe you could point to a mention in any one of these media sources in South Dakota? A college newspaper, even? You're telling me there's a systemic bias at the University of North Dakota journalism department? Puh-leeze. FCYTravis 23:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NN. An organization, company, unincorporated entity, whatever, that generates a grand total of 13 hits on myspace and none anywhere else is about as unnoteable as you can get. Fan1967 23:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Fan1967. Come back when you've signed some notable bands. Stifle 00:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have nothing against this article. This label seems to be gaining in prominence and I think it is unfortunate to see users so eager to delete articles which do have something informative to offer. --MatthewUND^(talk) 10:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Systemic bias argument is ridiculous, this is nn record label. Bluelinked "projects" in article also suspicious. Deizio 02:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn record label. JoshuaZ 02:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete North Dakota HAS a cultural scene? j/k, but still non-notable ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 04:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I try to look sympathetically on "alternative" music ventures, they can be notable without selling truckloads of records. This one, however, seems to have hardly got started and is right now thoroughly nn. --kingboyk 09:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, regrettably. Startup label, no product except for a sampler LP. That makes it NN. ProhibitOnions 11:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per MatthewUND. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a startup without any releases of note. Eivind^t@c 16:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. mikka (t) 21:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, weakly. Non-notable. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment and reaffirmed Keep. There are at least a dozen record labels in Category:2005 establishments, all with invariably small discographies. If Silvery Moon Records can have an article, there's no reason why This Could Work Records should not either.

  I must also express concern over the bias against North Dakota expressed by certain editors in this AFD. Diminishing the cultural achievements of a part of the world does not further the goals of an objective, comprehensive encyclopedia. --AlexWCovington (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Just because other companies that are similarly unqualified for an article on WP haven't been deleted yet doesn't justify this one. Dbchip 05:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment I don't see any such bias. Could you please point it out? JoshuaZ 22:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response SWATJester has made it readily obvious he does not take this to be serious subject matter. FCYTravis has also made many uninformed allegations against this article; He confuses North and South Dakota and is apparently unaware of the fact that the University of North Dakota has no accredited journalism department and the campus newspaper is about as focused on Minot happenings as the Chicago Tribune is on Milwaukee. --AlexWCovington (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Swatjester made one comment which he noted was a joke, given that and you claim that bias was expressed by "editors" plural, I have trouble seeing that. Your other comments, i.e. not being aware of the nature of the local newspaper and confusing N and S hardly constitute evidence of bias. Now, there specific conditions for WP:MUSIC. Instead of claiming bias, your best bet to get the article kept is to show that it fits those conditions. JoshuaZ 22:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • My claim that the article should remain based upon the fact that artists on the label have completed national tours in the United States has yet to be disputed. I would also maintain that This Could Work Records Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city, as Minot, North Dakota has no other indie/punk record labels. --AlexWCovington (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment It would be helpful if you could give us a citation for their completion of national tours. JoshuaZ 06:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:CORP, red link cruft. Royboycrashfan 06:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Cruft^{cruft}. --Deville (Talk) 06:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Did you mean ${\displaystyle Cruft^{cruft}}$ perhaps? JoshuaZ 06:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Daah, I've been TeXing too much these days. How about ${\displaystyle e^{CRUFT\,\ln(CRUFT)}}$? w00t --Deville (Talk) 14:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. Maybe you can find a North Dakota wiki and add it there? Or if that doesn't exist, start one at Wikicities. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 10:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hasn't been mentioned in any ND newspaper, or anywhere for that matter. Ashibaka tock 13:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN company. Or even a NNND company. Marcus22 15:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nn. Eusebeus 17:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:56, 25 March 2006 (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.