Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crescent City 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. Sandstein 11:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crescent City Records

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough sources exist to write an article of substance. Questionable notability. Mostly untouched for eleven years. Vmavanti (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by default - no valid reason for deletion has been offered. Of the three things mentioned, the first might become a reason if sufficient legwork is demonstrated - I'd like to know what Tom Lord and other major jazz discographers have listed, and sadly I do not have access to Lord's book right now. Chubbles (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I resent the comments. What does "keep by default" mean? Is it the old Groucho Marx song "Whatever it is, I'm against it"? I don't know. The accusation that I have offered "no valid reasons" is obviously false. Read my sentences again. Those are valid reasons stated simply and plainly, so anyone can understand them. By contrast, what is one to make of "if sufficient legwork is demonstrated"? This is speculation, suggestion, insinuation, and the invention of an imaginary criterion. When and how are "sufficient legwork" demonstrated? Where did that come from? If there is a specific point, get to it, and let's hear it. But let's not play games simply because one has strong feelings or wishes but no facts or reasons.
Vmavanti (talk) 03:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Not enough sources exist to write an article of substance" would be a valid reason if we had some sense of what WP:BEFORE was carried out and that it is sufficient - that one had looked in places where one ought to find sources for the topic. "Questionable notability" is not a valid reason for deletion - WP:JNN. "Mostly untouched for X years" is not a valid reason for deletion - WP:NOEFFORT. Chubbles (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a valid reason that doesn't require reading WP: BEFORE. That is an imaginary criteria. Without sources, there are no articles. If you have sourced material to add, free free to do so. No one is stopping you. You have had that freedom for eleven years, and so have the 7.5 billion other people who inhabit the Earth. But no one has touched this "article". Being against any and all deletion is insufficient in a discussion that requires reason and deliberation. It helps no one and it hinders progress. The insinuation that I haven't put enough effort into it is yet another personal attack. I have a long list of edits over more than four years of working on Wikipedia almost seven days a week. I have books on my shelves, papers and folders stacked on my desk, files crowded on my computer, bookmarks bulging from my browser, not to mention back surgery and high cholesterol. May I suggest that work ethic is a subject in which pointing the finger is a very bad idea?
Vmavanti (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A casual search is difficult, just because Crescent City and Records (and label, and adding specific artists), bring up so many unrelated results. That was such a fertile period in the city's music history; I think it's possible that reliable sources do exist, and will keep looking. Caro7200 (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've had eleven years. How many more would you like? Don't assume that all I have done is a "casual search" and don't assume that the searches I perform are casual, i.e. superficial or frivolous.
Vmavanti (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I keep hearing NOEFFORT here, again and again. Chubbles (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help you with that. But I do know it's pointless to continue to link to NOEFFORT. It's not policy. It's an essay, some opinions that popped into someone's head. So what? Everyone has opinions. There's no reason to read it, let alone follow it like a commandment.Vmavanti (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The label appears most notable for issuing the first Wild Magnolias single, although some sources, like Groove Interrupted: Loss, Renewal, and the Music of New Orleans, refer to the label as Crescent City 25. Other books assign 25 as the catalog number. Caro7200 (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The record label fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. The article does not cite any sources and I can't find a single reliable sources discussing the label. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have no idea what "keep by default" means. The google results are so slim that we've all seen them and I'm not convinced that any of them confers notability. I don't see anything useful here. Ikjbagl (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolutely no evidence of notability has been presented in this debate, and my own searches show no coverage. Editors voting “keep by default” seems to be a case of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and I would strongly discourage. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2020 (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.