Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academy Fight Song


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Academy Fight Song

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is one of the articles where I contested the speedy deletion nomination. This record label is well written but I'm not sure is any of the sources are reliable enough, particularly this one. Minima c  ( talk ) 05:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Looks to be bordering on sufficiently important, and passes WP:V.--Michig (talk) 07:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- Favonian (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete I was the one who CSD'ed it. While I'm glad that the article has grown from a CSD candidate, I still belive that the article does not assert notability and does not use indipendent third party resources other than amazon.com ect.-- White Shadows I ran away from you 16:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No opinion; however, if this article is kept, I recommend moving it to Academy Fight Song (record label), and if it is deleted, I recommend redirecting the title to Mission of Burma. When I saw this AfD, I thought I had heard of "Academy Fight Song" before, but what I had heard of was the title of Mission of Burma's single of the same title, which has been covered by R.E.M.. I suspect that the song may be better known than the record label. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. None of the sources can be considered to give substantial coverage. Article appears to have been created by label themselves (as seen here). Was inital copyright violation from their myspace page, with references to "we" in the article. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - Sufficient releases to establish notability. Carrite (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - need substantial coverage from independent sources. Racepacket (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * delete Inadequate sourcing. Spartaz Humbug! 07:12, 25 July 2010 (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.