Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RRRecords

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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RRRecords[edit]

A non-notable record company who's lack of significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources means it fails to meet the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I've searched but can't find any. Has been tagged since July 2008 with no improvement, so I'm putting it out to the community. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable sources publishing substantial content on this record company. The only articles I can find that mention the company more than in one sentence are from its hometown's newspaper. Tim meh ! 23:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=RRRecords&cf=all shows media coverage from Boston Globe, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Portland Mercury. Also, see recent notes on the edit page for this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.124.44 (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show that any of those sources include substantial coverage of RRRecords? Tim meh ! 22:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
most of them require archive purchase, but here is one I can find http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=260522 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.124.44 (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Discogs has thorough documentation on the releases put out by RRRecords. Not only is Discogs the most reputable record label discography source on the web, their marketplace currently contains over 450 RRRecords entries from all over the world: http://www.discogs.com/label/RRRecords —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.3.182 (talk) 05:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A record company putting out records doesn't automatically make them notable, it's kinda like what you'd expect them to do. If you can show me they have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, I'll happily withdraw the nomination. Please refer to WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick search of the prominent experimental music news/review website Brainwashed.com, reveals fairly extensive coverage of RRRecords releases. In the form of release announcements, http://brainwashed.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4971&Itemid=67 and album reviews, http://brainwashed.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2573&Itemid=64 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.3.182 (talk) 06:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note The above is a double keep !vote by the same IP. Tim meh ! 20:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added references to the print magazines Lumpen (international distribution of 35000 copies according to Wikipedia) which has a couple of paragraphs on RRRecords and says "Ron Lessard's RRR Records is the noise label that set the standard for all the others." I think this speaks to its notability. I also added a reference to an article in glossy print magazine Swindle, which has at least a paragraph on the importance of RRRecords. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noisician (talk • contribs) 15:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC) — Noisician (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Tim meh ! 20:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep RRRecords is responsible for some of the most unusual music listed in Wiki. Kim Cascone's "The Flickering of Sowing Time" and the group known as P16.D4 immediately come to mind, but there are many others here. If judged by their success as a business, RRR is not notable, but their impact on experimental music is very significant.

Cormacs (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a commercial success, but as mentioned above, widely covered by magazines and thus notable. -Moritheil (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2009 (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.