Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prosthetic 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 keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prosthetic Records

The article is obviously spam/vandalism Mecanismo 00:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It should be speedy. Who's idea was it to restrict speedy deletions so that this sort of thing cannot be labelled as {{db-spam}}? Tell me, that I may strangle them. These nominations are a waste of everyone's time. Reyk 02:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Hopefully it should be obvious now why this gets sent to AfD. Turns out it's a legitimate topic and was fixed thanks to the AfD process. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Spam. V. Alex Brennen 03:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• CommentKeep. This is far from a speedy or vandalism(!). It's not spam, it's a valid stub. It's just their address and a list of their bands, with no claims or boasts made. It doesn't even give their web site. Some of those bands are notable -- Even I recognized Lamb of God (band) which has six records out and a Wikipedia article. All That Remains has an article. I don't know if the others do -- I checked some but not all, not finding any more articles (which doesn't prove a band is not notable). Prosthetic Records gets a lot Google hits, too. I don't know what the policy or precedent is on record labels, so I'm not going to vote, but its an artistic endeavor so I'd tend to give the benefit of the doubt. I'm gonna leave it to others who are more familiar with this sort of thing, though. (I do note that nominator also just nominated Lowell High School for AfD resulting in a speedy keep.) Herostratus 07:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• This is not spam; it is blatant spam. Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 12:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Mike Rosoft. Ifnord 17:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Please note that any comments before this one, do not reflect the article as rewritten by Pburka. Please don't count them when closing. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. I've rewritten it more in the style of Wikipedia, but there was nothing in the original article which merited deletion. Pburka 17:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per rewrite, it looks like a perfectly fine stub now. Snurks ^{T C} 19:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's definitely a notable label, and the rewrite makes it a reasonable stub for Wikipedia. peachlette 21:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - notable enough Spearhead 23:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - no more or less notable than many of the other 200 or so record label stubs. --Condorman 23:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This was never a speedy and should not have been nominated. -- JJay 04:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - querulous nomination - David Gerard 13:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• The article was rewritten, so keep. - Mike Rosoft 11:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

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.