Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burnt Oak 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   delete. Mr.Z-man 17:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Burnt Oak Records

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod deletion. Non notable music label, fails WP:CORP Duffbeerforme (talk) 09:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * delete, IMO. does not establish sufficient notability. SYSS Mouse (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Too many red links, not enough reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete It appears the Kitchener-Waterloo Record had an article on the label in March 2006. In the absence of anything further, it has to go. Another piece of non-trivial coverage would sway me the other way. Brilliantine (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 05:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep — Coverage in The Record, Exclaim!, Echo Weekly. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:33, 13 September 2008 (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.