Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apt 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 merge‎ to ABC Records. While there is consensus to retain the material, there does not appear to be one to retain as a standalone. Star Mississippi 02:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Apt Records

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Apt Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

References only one source and a google search does not yield much notability (i.e: a few questionable sources; Discogs, Rate Your Music, Both Sides Now Publications. Notability seems thin here. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Granted, this is a discontinued label, so much of the info may be in newspapers from its era. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to ABC Records: this was its parent label and Apt Records is mentioned there, making it a viable-enough alternative to deletion barring the emergence of more-substantial sourcing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to ABC Records. Completely agree with above. I think there's some useful information in the article that could be used within ABC Records, but not enough to warrant its own article. Beachweak (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Merge rather than redirect. This was just a sublabel for singles releases of ABC, but the label history is noteworthy enough to merit mention in the parent article. Chubbles (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  Or keep! based on below efforts. Chubbles (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - Significant coverage found at [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], Billboard January 30, 1965 page 4, the liner notes of this, [6] (I consider this a reliable source, it is curated and used by academic sources), 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

for what it’s worth regarding nom statement, Discogs and Rate Your Music are not reliable. Both Sides Now is reliable, but what’s there regarding Apt isn’t significant coverage. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per request at User_talk:OwenX#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Apt_Records.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep or merge I think there's a potential editorial decision to be made as to whether this should be a stand-alone page - the Billboard coverage is clearly good coverage, I'm not entirely convinced liner notes and a list of releases get us to GNG but there's definitely sources we can use to write about the label. Whether a sub-label should be on the parent page or not isn't something I really care about, but the article as it reads currently is in pretty bad shape and if it's not significantly updated, a merge might be a better option. But while AfD can function as a merge discussion, my entire point is that there's enough sources that we don't need to delete this. SportingFlyer T·C 01:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to ABC Records - This is a company (or a subsidiary of one), so the appropriate guidelines are WP:NCORP. That means coverage must be at WP:CORPDEPTH in multiple independent reliable and secondary sources. The run of sources provided are mostly all from Billboard and count as a single source under the guidelines. The other two sources are definitely not at CORPDEPTH, but at least the first Billboard article is, telling us something about the proposed re-activated subsidiary and about a previous hit on the label. But these are also news reporting, which is a primary source. You are right that Billobaord would be curated and used by academic sources, but that word, curation, is key. Academics would be curating this primary source when producing their histories, analysis and synthesis. The academic sources are then the secondary sources. Wikipedia articles are tertiary, and should be written from the secondary sources, not the primary ones. We don't yet have any secondary sourcing. Under WP:SIRS there is not enough here for a standalone article. But, despite that, the first Billboard article is a good find. Used with care, it could be used to flesh out information on this subsidiary of ABC Records in that article. A secondary source would be better, but the primary source provides information that we could present without synthesis in a suitable small section. Although this !vote is for merge, much of the mergeable content is actually in this AfD and not on the page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

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.