Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chas. H. Hansen Music Corp.


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Chas. H. Hansen Music Corp.

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Company article about a publisher of sheet music. Notability not established in accordance with WP:ORG. I cannot find significant, independent or reliable sources about the subject (only one provided mentions the subject at all). The article offers little more than support that the subject existed, outside of being located across the street or down the block from notable concert halls. There are names of several notable musicians added to the article, which may indicate significance/importance to forego A7, but these are not sourced. And notability is not inherited. I cannot find any sheet music publications of this company that are notable. While I initially thought there may be significance to create an article for the corporation merged with Ervin Litkei (Hanlit Publications), I cannot actually find citations to support a new article. And the claim made about the Beatles applies to "sheet music", rather than the Beatles catalogue (which this company never owned). A claim was made that notability is established due to notability of one of the employees, but again, notability is not inherited. Best regards,  Cindy  ( talk to me ) 23:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep under the policy of Ignore All Rules. The encyclopedia is better with this piece than without it. Carrite (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete while I'm not averse to coverage of defunct sheet music publishers, indepth coverage is a pre-condition, and as far as I can see none of the references actually talk about the topic. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Using the idea of "ignoring all rules" simply opens the door to allowing any ancillary, unreliable, and insignificant information (or otherwise) to the wiki environment. Please find applicable sourcing, verifications, and make this less WP:NN than it is now. Ren99 (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The only way to really keep this article is by "ignoring all rules", but we have rules for a reason. Notability is still important. Ducknish (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2012 (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.