Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullseye Records of Canada


 * 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) 07:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Bullseye Records of Canada

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unremarkable defunct minor record company. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment.  I am not sure about this one.  They did have a roster of reasonably notable acts, and I did find a little bit of coverage--for example this in a 2004 Billboard about "Canada's Oldies Revival", and stuff about their relationship with Klaatu.  Worth a bit more investigation, at least. Also, as a procedural matter, please note that the AfD tag currently seems to be missing from the article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * AfD tag now in place. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  —Arxiloxos (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  —Arxiloxos (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Notice of this AfD has been posted at Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. —Arxiloxos (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not quite sure what  to  make of this either.In  the infobox is says 'defunct', but  they   still  appear to have an active website. Continental  Records seems to  be reissuing  all the previously  published Bullseye titles. I  can't  come up  with  sources better than social networks, the inevitable YouTube, blogs, and junk e-zines. The MySpace source is of course completely  diallowable. I would say  that  due to  the lack of clarity and sources, even if there is no  consensus here, it  should default  to  'delete' rather than keep just  because its historical.--Kudpung (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep They have/had many famous  groups that have released albums with them. Notability is not bound by time. The company was the first in Canada to re-issues old albums. They have thousands of albums out there they have produced or re-released from major Canadian groups aswell as a magazine "Great White Noise" . pls see Bio of fonder,,,,,,,,,,,,,Moxy (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)  Moxy (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete per nom. Also, if the article creator can't be bothered to find any sources, it reflects poorly on the value of the article. Lastly, I don't consider an autobiography of a person involved in the studio to be a reliable source in establishing notability, per My mother says I'm special. principle on bias. Sven Manguard  Talk  05:03, 29 October 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.