Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orchestral Colour Records
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 08:44, 1 March 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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. TigerShark (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Orchestral Colour Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Nonnotable new "independent record label" Mukadderat (talk)00:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New is relative; they're nearly a year old. Why did you put "independent record label" in quotation marks, as if OCR was secretly something else? Two secondary sources are cited; are you questioning their reliability? Brendan Vox (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the label hasn't been covered in any reliable sources, nor are any notable acts signed to it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable company. Fails WP:CORP & WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 02:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a non-notable company. No news coverage or significance found in the article. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 03:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can someone explain what distinguishes reliable sources? What specifically is wrong with those cited? 75.49.251.170 (talk) 06:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They're trivial in nature and don't give a whole lot of information on the label. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I feel like these terms are highly subjective and ambiguous. What distinguishes a trivial source from a non-trivial source? What sort of information should they include? Brendan Vox (talk) 10:02, 15 June 2008 (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.