Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anticon.

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. GRBerry 16:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anticon.

Anticon. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable: no sources independent of the subject are listed. Rambutan (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - They're a pretty major independent label. They have their own website, a few of the artists have their own website, you can find their CD's at Best Buy and your local record store, and have been around for a longgggg time. The page as it is right now is fine, could be expanded a little bit. But if you delete this, it'd only be fair to delete the Def Jux, Stones Throw, and Rhymesayers page. Take a look at all the albums they've released. [1] Surely it would be a mistake to delete this page. My 2 Cents at least. ^{Erryday I'm} 18:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - To be on WP it must list several reliable sources independent of the subject. It doesn't. Read WP:NOTE.--Rambutan (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply I'm sure within 5 minutes of using Google you could have several reliable sources for the article. If you like, I could run some by you. ^{Erryday I'm} 19:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Rambutan, that's not at all true. Sources need to exist, but the fact that an article is currently unsourced isn't grounds for deleting it.P4k 22:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The record company is notable. The article needs refs, and I have tagged it accordingly. Refs shouldn't be hard to find - would have been better to tag it and leave some time for refs to be added before AfDing IMHO.--Michig 19:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per the above. A need for cleanup != grounds for deletion. Bfigura ^(talk) 20:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm sorry. but this fails WP:MUSIC as best as I can see. First of all the link is not exactly reliable. WP:MUSIC states that reliable including but "publications of contact and booking details in directories," and a series of other things. This is a a listing a directory, not a reliable source. Until someone can show me a reliable source, delete. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 22:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If you have references for notability, put them in the article, not here. MarkBul 23:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC
• Keep I have heard of this record company. I have not read the article, but if an editor from the Midwest who doesn't listen to Hiphop has heard of it, chances are it's notable. How about giving the editor(s) a chance to find reliable sources before deleting? (Diego Gravez 23:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC))
• Comment. I didn't know anything about this record label before looking it up in relation to this AfD, but a few minutes on google has demonstrated that the label is clearly notable, as are the artists on the label, and I have now added a number of references to the article which I believe demonstrate notability.--Michig 19:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article might not be the best one in the whole Wikipedia, but I dont see one good reason why it should be deleted. There are all the basic facts about the record label, and some extra as well, before just deleting it we must try to enhance the article, so if anyone has a more reliable source, please use it, and perhaps we´re allowed to keep the article in place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertyuiopillu (talk • contribs) 10:53, 25 September 2007 (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.