Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gadsen Records (2nd nomination)

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.

SarahStierch (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Gadsen Records

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

Lacks

notability

. Sourced by things that are not about them, that don't mention them . Notability is not inherited from who they don't work with. A look at the current sourcing [1]:

1 - Passing mention "The Darlings' debut LP release, 'The New Escape', due out April 24th on Gadsen Records/UMG"

2 - Dead link, was about The Darlings, not Gadsen. Not a reliable source.

3 - About the CEO, focusing on football. no mention of Gadsen. not good enough for notability for him (afd)

4 - About the CEO, focusing on football. no mention of Gadsen. not good enough for notability for him (afd)

5 - Dead link. About football not music.

6 - No mention of Gadsen. Do not verify claims made. Claims made are not about Gadsen but about the Vice President.

7 - No mention of Gadsen. Do not verify claims made. Claims made are not about Gadsen but about the Vice President.

8 - Unrelated to Gadsen.

None provide any depth of coverage about Gadsen Records. A search found nothing to show notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, | Uncle Milty | talk | 12:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsure why all those sources were added when most of them aren't related to Gadsen Records. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 03:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On top of the reasons listed above, the band most closely associated with the label is also lacking notability, so there appears to be no industry impact. I realize this is not a policy-based argument, but I'm trying to formulate a potential notability policy regarding record labels (part of what I want to accomplish for
WP:RECORD LABELS) and this wouldn't meet the criteria. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Sources don't provide "significant coverage" of the topic. Betty Logan (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems like a pretty solid source. http://organicamusicgroup.com/our-artists/ 12:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.210.155 (talk)

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.