Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traditional Crossroads

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Crossroads

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

No indications that this record label rises to the notability requirements of WP:ORG. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No evidence of notability, and also rather promotional in character. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - some Gnews hits indicates that this label seems to obtain some relevance for this special kind of music; so it may meet WP:ORG. Dewritech (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Rather than just indicating that there are "some Gnews hits", it would be more helpful if Dewritech could actually provide individual links that he believes constitute significant coverage. None of the Gnews hits I found pass the level of "mention in passing". WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there seems to be few independent sources (among a ton of false positives) so I'm not sure it's actually notable. ~~However, in its present form, it is nothing but a large amount of spam.~~ Thus, if it's actually notable, it should be incubated until it is written ~~without spam~~ in a non-promotional fashion with proper sources. ETA: after verification, what I thought were external links were actually just misformatted Wikilinks. Still, doesn't solve the notability and promotion issues.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Once one winnows out the G News hits to remove the chaff, you're left with 100% "Soandso's next CD is being released on the Traditional Crossroads label." This doesn't remotely close passing the GNG - where's the subject being discussed in "significant detail?" - or any other notability criteria. Ravenswing 21:06, 22 January 2011 (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.