Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tru Thoughts

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, Tru Thoughts overhwlmingly, bands kept owing lack of discussion, with a humble suggestion that AfDs aren't fit for more than 2 or 3 closely linked topics at a time. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tru Thoughts

Doesn't seem to be a notable label; sources given are primary or Discogs, not reliable.

Also nominating related musicians and albums::

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable in my opinion. Sure the articles could need some improvement and additional sources. The keyword 'Tru Thoughts' gets 250.000 hits on Google. However, I am not sure if separate articles for the individual releases are needed. They might be merged into the main artist's articles. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 19:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please unbundle Too many different issues here, some may be notable and not others. Are there established criteria for notability of record labels? I'm indenting some !votes that may be spread out over different debates if this is unbundled. Mangostar (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep QSO and merge to Will Holland I could find several profiles of the band by reliable sources. Non-trivial profile coverage from Lexis: Nige Tassell, "For those about to squawk", The Guardian (London), December 7, 2007 (1094 wds); "An eclectic set from quantic", Bristol Evening Post, July 12, 2007 (674 wds); Andrew Drever, "Young and Restless", The Age (Melbourne, Australia), November 12, 2004 (536 wds); MARTIN LONGLEY, "FUNKED UP AND GROOVY", Birmingham Post, December 8, 2003 (266 wds); Louise Ramsay, "Quantic Soul Orchestra Komedia Brighton July 25", UK Newsquest Regional Press - This is Brighton and Hove, July 25, 2003 (433 wds); "Quantic Soul Orchestra", Bristol Evening Post, June 12, 2003 (430 wds); Beth Pearson, "It all went apricot-shaped; Will Holland's life plan ended in early failure, but he has had more than enough success since then to make up for it, reports Beth Pearson", The Herald (Glasgow), December 6, 2002 (804 wds). QSO also gets 240,000 ghits. I think keeping all content about QSO in the Will Holland article makes most sense, because he's had several projects, and it pretty much looks like QSO just is him. Mangostar (talk) 03:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge QSO album articles Did not find much coverage for individual albums when searching for QSO--don't think the sourcing is there. Mangostar (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hint Could not find adequate independent sourcing in Lexis. Mangostar (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tru Thoughts Haven't thoroughly investigated this one, but with so many ghits and at least two notable artists signed to them (Will Holland/QSO and Alice Russell) they are surely notable. Mangostar (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tru Thoughts - This is a well established, though independent electronic and dance music label, who have released 60+ albums and over 100 singles over the last 9 years. I've added some more of their notable artists, and will look to add more (independent) info and refs. Gram123 (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Possible Merge Will Holland & Quantic Soul Orchestra - Though Holland's name will be less recognisable to people than his musician / band names (Quantic, Quantic Soul Orchestra and The Limp Twins), it makes sense to merge the pseudonym articles into one article under his real name, and make the others redirects. Most of the info appears to be under Will Holland already. I understand the possible deletion of the album articles, as they aren't much more than stubs and they probably didn't achieve significant chart positions. Gram123 (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Keep every article, as Quantic and The Quantic Soul Orchestra are different projects. You won't merge Fatboy Slim and Freakpower, would you? And Tru Thoughts is separate from both, being a record label. As for notability, Tru Thoughts is the most notable deep funk/nu funk record label in the whole world. It's just like nomitating Anticon. Additionally, Will Holland's projects are also notable deep funk act of 2000's, though not to the degree of bands like The Poets of Rhythm. I'm shocked with this nomination. And with such aproach (nominating for deletion something you are not an expert in) as well. Netrat_msk (talk) 01:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further to Netrat_msk's final point, I've looked through the music articles the nominator (User:TenPoundHammer) has created (specifically those listed User:TenPoundHammer/Pages I created#Music pages I created) and I've got to say I don't recognise any of those artists or albums at all. Selecting one at random (Marty Raybon), I took a look at the article and frankly, from an outsider's pov, it appears that there is little difference between the notability, quality of article, and standard of external sources for that artist, versus the ones nominated here. I wouldn't dream of being presumptious enough to nominate Marty Raybon for deletion (or any of those other articles TenPoundHammer has created), as it is absolutely beyond my area of knowledge or expertise. If a music label / artist / album doesn't appear to have good sources, shouldn't they be marked with something like a {{refimprove}} or {{primarysources}} template, rather than automatically deciding to nominate them for afd? Gram123 (talk) 10:38, 12 June 2008 (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.