Talk:Chance Records

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 August 2009. The result of the discussion was speedy keep, withdrawal of nomination.

What's going on here? Chance is the company that recorded such acts as The Flamingos, The Moonglows, The Five Echoes, J. B. Hutto, Homesick James Williamson, Schoolboy Porter, and John Sellers. It also released three singles by John Lee Hooker. I see skeletal articles on Wikipedia for independent record companies like United Records (one of Chance's competitors), States Records, and so on.

I have no idea why this demand for speedy deletion was made, but if it is pressed I will make a formal complaint about it.-RLCampbell (talk) 01:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're article does not demonstrate notability, Perhaps rather than defending it here, you should in the actual article with reliable sources? --Abc518 (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to switch it to AfD in the mean time, good luck. --Abc518 (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The history page for this article shows that you jumped in with your demand to delete it 2 minutes after I started the article. Moreover, the label you slapped on the article demanded an immediate response here on this talk page. I and others can provide plenty of published sources that cover aspects of Chance Records. It appears, however, that you would prefer to delete the article before anyone has an opportunity to do so. Please take this article off AfD. If after one week, you are not satisfied with it, then make any complaint you wish.-RLCampbell (talk) 01:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago soul question

Although Art Sheridan played a role in Chicago soul music (as a partner in Constellation), and Ewart Abner contributed at both Vee-Jay and Constellation, Chance closed at the end of 1954. And that was too early for the company to record any real soul music.-RLCampbell (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I added it as a "See also" and not in the body of the text. Ain't nothin' black or white and everything has cause and effect, but if you think the link is too tenuous, by all means delete it. You are very much the resident expert here :) - Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page Structure

Time to remove essay tag? --Abc518 (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. Are there further headings you'd like to add?-RLCampbell (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page looks alot better --Abc518 (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Releases list

Earlier today, another editor began to list all the releases made by Chance Records. Given that none of the artists mentioned in the Artists section of the article were on that list, it became very clear to me, even though those were only the first 11 releases, that a complete list of releases would overwhelm the article. Accordingly, I deleted the list, as it would quickly run counter of Wikipedia is not a directory. Further, no source was provided for the list, so verifiability is an issue.

Is there any reason that a full list of releases would be encyclopedic, useful in the article, and not be unduly heavy? —C.Fred (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe none of the artists mentioned in the Artists section (which I thought could be easily removed as superfluous once the release list was complete) appeared on the list because of another editor's eagerness to delete it before it got past 13 entries :)

I don't see how WP:NOTDIR precludes putting this kind of information in an article about an independent record label that was in business for 4 years. As for verifiability, any release list for a reasonably well-known American label of this type from the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s can be supported with a citation to Bob McGrath's 4 volumes titled The R&B Indies. For what it's worth, the main Chance 1100 series was already covered in a magazine article published in 1963.-RLCampbell (talk) 02:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that WP:UNDUE appears to be mainly about controversial positions. A list of releases on a record label ought to give rise to very little controversy, unless it's inaccurate.-RLCampbell (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, WP:UNDUE is not what I'm looking for. My concern is that the article will turn into 100 lines of prose and 500 lines of release listings, and that's what I'm referring to. This article should tell about the label in a summary format, not provide the exacting details of every release (which, again, is something precluded by NOTDIR). —C.Fred (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDIR has 7 bullets under it. Which, if any, of the 7 precludes a release list for a historical record label? A complete list of Chance singles will run to 94 lines. If the one item on the quickly abandoned Meteor subsidiary is included, the total will be bumped up to 95.-RLCampbell (talk) 02:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If 94/95 singles is all it will be, let's go ahead and add it. Worst case, it can be hidden. My though is probably, once the data is in, it can be turned into a sortable table with columns for release number, artist, and title. —C.Fred (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, CFred. Sortable would be nice; I need to learn how to make a sortable table... -RLCampbell (talk) 03:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left sample code on your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 03:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I should be able to input the rest of the entries sortably.-RLCampbell (talk) 03:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]