Talk:Essential Records (Christian)

Fair use rationale for Image:Essentialrecords.jpg

Image:Essentialrecords.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability tag

Being as the label has just survived an AfD, I can see no reason why the notability label should be reapplied. The AfD's purpose is a review of notability, and the label has been found notable since it was kept at the discussion. Chubbles (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No the AfD did conclude it was notable as not a single link to anything that showed "Significant coverage" in reliable sources that are independent of the subject as detailed in the General Notability Guidelines. An AfD can chose to ignore the guidelines as they are just that, however unless some links can be shown then the tag should be reinserted. Codf1977 (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Tagging it for notability right after it's been kept at AfD is a personal statement of dissatisfaction at the AfD, not a constructive notice for further review. You may be unhappy with the result of the AfD, but it is a consensus that the article meets one or more criteria for inclusion. If you have new evidence or interpretive angles, you can renominate it for deletion (though doing so very soon afterwards is generally discouraged as disruptive). Your personal opinion about the sources presented and the reasoning of other editors does not override consensus. Chubbles (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

My feeling do not enter into it - where are the sources ? - there are none ! Codf1977 (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should argue your case at WP:DRV, where you may assert that the AfD was closed improperly. Chubbles (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was very inappropriate too and I almost removed it myself. Perhaps there are other appropriate criteria like WP:MUSIC would apply like I suggested in the deletion discussion. I've already added a bunch of sources to the article. Every sentence is sourced! What do you have against this topic that you keep dwelling on it? I've lost some AFD battles; some times you have to take a lump, figure out why you took a lump (why does every other person in the discussion argue for keeping an article on a subsidiary of one of the major record labels where every single artist is notable enough to have an article, win major awards, chart placement, etc.?), and move on. The way you keep fighting make me wonder what you have against the topic but I won't insult you with guesses. Royalbroil 00:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

RoyalBroil, I'm wondering if something ought to be done at WP:MUSIC to officially bring record labels under the umbrella of that guideline. I have occasionally seen editors arguing that labels are to be judged according to WP:CORP, which is a Procrustean bed if ever I've seen one. Of late there've been a couple of high profile labels that look to be heading out the door - Eulogy and Ferret among them. I've always been loath to get into policy discussions, but I can't help but think maybe it's time for musicians, rather than businesspeople, to be judging the encyclopedic worth of record labels. Any thoughts on that end? Chubbles (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I agree since it was the crux of my argument. I started a feeler thread at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#Record_label_standards to see if it has been discussed before. Royalbroil 02:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Essential Records (Christian). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100417021643/http://www.google.com:80/Top/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Christianity/Music/Record_Labels/ to http://www.google.com/Top/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Christianity/Music/Record_Labels/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Labeling

The title should be Essential Records (Sony imprint), as it is Sony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6081:407:C700:427:30FE:EBEA:DFB4 (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

It was a stand-alone label before Sony bought it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)