Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheiron 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 redirect to Cheiron Studios. Nakon 23:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Cheiron Records

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

non-notable record label. No length of established history. No signed notable artists. Creator maintains it is an "official" re-creation, but there are no sources establishing that there is any relationship between this American record label and the defunct Swedish recording studio. The article tries to inherit notability, but name dropping does not notability make. 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 13:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)   78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 13:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This article is not about a "new" record label, it is about the famous label itself. It just mentions that the fact that the label was revived in 2015 and is actively distributing music again. However, your premise is incorrect about it being a non-notable record label, as well as name dropping to inherit notability of the "defunct" famous entity, because the article is about the formerly defunct famous entity itself, including its distribution history with famous companies BMG and Zomba. There is no evidence of this record label being a "new" record label with the same name, and the article is primarily about the label's notable history, which nobody can dispute. Vote to KEEP with current references about label's history and more references added regarding its present music distribution. Music2015 (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, first sentence of the article "Cheiron Records is a United States based record label". Therefore the subject of the article is about this US operation.  There are no sources that tie this US operation to the notable Cheiron Studios, or the Swedish record label (which does not appear to have established any notability outside of the Studio) by that name.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 17:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete and restore redirect page - this company is non-notable. The article creator has still not proven the claimed historical ties to Cheiron Studios. At first it all seems to be true, but once one starts to dig, one discovers that there are too many things that just aren’t right about the company: on its website it claims to have members who have “direct ties back to the original Cheiron” onboard, but it does not mention any examples. It also presents informations that is untrue, for instance that Atlantic Hill Music is a world-renowned company (which it is not, it returns only 60 hits on Google). Cheiron is still described in Swedish media as defunct, almost a full year after the alleged revival (i.e. it does not seem like the original owners have been informed). To sum up: this company claims to be an official revival of the Swedish company, but it does not present any evidence (and I am unable to find any either). 84.209.76.114 (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is not about a non-notable "new" company. Again, you are missing the point that the article is a stub article about the famous label which mentions that it was revived and is currently distributing music, something which is important for community readers to at least know. There is zero evidence of this label being a "new" record label with the same name, and the article is mostly about the label's history anyway. I do not know about the particulars of web information in smaller countries like Sweden, but in the UK and USA, web searches turn up much about Cheiron. I also have no idea why you are mentioning an "Atlantic Hill Music". What does that company have anything to do with Cheiron Records and its history/present? This is an article about Cheiron Records, not another company. You keep mentioning companies and individuals associated with the deleted Rocket articles, which is why I initially thought (no accusation though) you were a sock puppet of the blocked editors who created those articles, because you keep obsessing over them so much. The source you provided from this Swedish radio blog is hardly reliable as well, and is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Music2015 (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, no evidence whatsoever has ever been presented that links the current US company to the old Swedish company. They have the same name, that appears to be it.  As such, it appears that this current version of Cheiron Records is merely trying to capitalize on the notoriety of the previous entity.  The simple question is:  Where is an independent, reliable source that ties these two organizations together?  You keep stating it is about the label's history, but since this appears to be two separate and distinct organizations, the Swedish history is irrelevant and should not be included in the US company's history.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 15:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. 84.209.76.114 (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI that Swedish “radio blog” is actually Sveriges Radio, Sweden’s public radio broadcaster. For this documentary (Arvet efter Cheiron - en oändlig historia) and its predecessor (Cheiron - en popsaga), SR has interviewed people such as Max Martin, E-Type, Daniel Volle (Cheiron co-founder Dag Volle’s son) and Anne Catrine Volle (Dag Volle’s sister). These documentaries also include clips from archived interviews with Dag Volle. Web searches definitely provide lots of information about Cheiron, in Swedish as well as in English, but none of it is about this company. I mentioned “Atlantic Hill Music” because this Cheiron Music Group company describes it as a world-renowned company on its own website, which it is not. These companies seem to be closely related. They link to each other, their bosses have a father-in-law/son-in-law relation and currently this is the top story on Atlantic Hill Music’s website: “5/5/2015 - "DNA", the second single from Cheiron Records recording artist Anthony Gargiula, has been released worldwide. The song was produced by Tim Coons at the Atlantic Hill Music Studios in Orlando, FL. ” Point is: when they have shamelessly lied once, why not lie again? There are no independent, reliable sources to back up their claims (including the alleged ties to Cheiron Studios).

About the notability: Cheiron Records was a short-lived record label that released next to nothing. It is/was not notable and therefore does not have its own article. Cheiron became famous for its studio (Cheiron Studios). 84.209.76.114 (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * FYI, I just find it a bit peculiar that you are now talking about an entirely different company which is not even mentioned in the Wiki article, and are using words such as "have shamelessly lied once" about it and then connecting it to Cheiron Records. Where are your reliable references about this Atlantic Hill Music company "shamelessly lying"? Is that a provable fact beyond a Swedish web search? I'm sorry, but a Swedish web search and your personal opinions on this matter does not constitute a Wiki article deletion. I do have a question for you though, do you work for a company in Sweden that dislikes Cheiron Records or competes against it now that it is based in the USA? I'm just asking you this politely because you seem incredibly "angry" about Cheiron Records (and these other third party companies you keep harping on), like it is personal to you. I say that kindly and not in any personal attack kind of way either. I'm just curious why you would state what could potentially be construed as slanderous language about various record companies publicly and state your negative personal opinions about them as factual information. Where are your references about these companies lying? Please don't keep mentioning your Swedish web searches either, because there is nothing to back up your claims of these companies lying. Where are your reliable references saying that they are "lying"?


 * Do you have a reliable reference stating that these other companies you keep mentioning have "shamelessly lied once", or is this perhaps your opinion on the matter which you are blindly stating as a fact because you perhaps do not like that Cheiron Records was relaunched in the USA after originating in Sweden? Just curious to know. Music2015 (talk) 07:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Just Google "Atlantic Hill Music" (include the double quotation marks or Google will match any page that contains these three words and variations of them) and click on the 10th page. You will discover that there are only 6-7 pages of results and Google will report only about 60 hits. Then see the link in my previous post to Cheiron Music Group’s website; Atlantic Hill Music is described as a world-renowned company, which is a lie (60 hits means not even 0,5 hits per country in the world). Compare that to for instance "Wikipedia", which returns more than 4*109 results (more than 20 million results per country).

And no, I do not work in Sweden (neither do I live there). My only connection to Cheiron is that I have bought some records that were produced at Cheiron Studios. Nothing personal, it’s just that a connection between the companies does not exist. I reverted your changes because the information cannot be confirmed. Cheiron was closed for good in 2000 and succeeded by Maratone, The Location / Roxy etc. 84.209.76.114 (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The article in question here is about Cheiron Records, and we are getting off topic, but I have heard you talk about this Atlantic Hill Music so much that I Googled both it and its owner Tim Coons. Numerous reliable independent sources (i.e. magazines, newspaper articles, network television news stations, etc.) wrote about him (some of which this year and last year) and his past/present accomplishments as a music producer. Some of them even interviewed him on live television broadcasts I see. However, I have found absolutely nothing stating that his company has "lied shamelessly" or even something about its credential not being legitimate. Who cares if they or others refer to it as "world renowned". I have seen numerous quotes from famous recording artists (Backstreet Boys,JoJo, etc.) about Coons, which I'm sure the company would be sued or put out of business for libel by those artists if those quotes were not true or made up by someone else. To me "world renowned" fits when working with recording artists of that caliber. The company even has a clearly non-photoshopped picture of a Backstreet Boy (Howie Dorough) and that Coons guy working in the company's studio on their website. Your "web hits" count ratio means nothing compared to reliable independent sources (and there are many of them) which a quick Google search provides, at least one done in North America. As a matter of fact, the more I read about this Coons guy, I would even say that the Wiki editor(s) who deleted the "controversial" Coons article (which I initially thought you were the article's creator or a sock puppet of them) did so in haste and irresponsibly in my opinion as a Wiki editor, unless these many independent references easily found with a quick web search were not available at the time (I have no idea or not) they deleted that Wiki article about Coons.


 * I must also challenge your claims of Cheiron Records being "non-notable" as a record label, even back in its "hey day". Not with numerous articles and mentions from music publications such as Billboard, Rolling Stone, and other notable publications, even if its artist roster didn't include the most famous recording artists in the world at the time. The label itself was clearly "notable", and nothing you have said or provided by way of reliable references yet sways me otherwise, even if "Cheiron Studios" was the more famous arm of the company. Your personal opinions and conjecture are just that, personal (and not reliable as fact). Cheiron Records as a "revived label" would get sued if not a legitimate successor label owning the brand and history, especially with its information on both its and its parent company's (Cheiron Music Group) website, and with the connection to Coons and recording artists he works and/or has worked with (which is verified through reliable independent sources) which you have brought up, that only furthers the legitimacy and notability (on its own and not inherited) of Cheiron Records. Your claims are personal opinions and are not backed up by any references or facts, and your "web search hit count ratio" is not a reliable reference. Until I see reliable references supporting your many claims of "lies and falsities", I say KEEP for the Wiki article about Cheiron Records. Music2015 (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * To your points:
 * Cheiron's web page prominently features Atlantic Hill Music on its web page. The web page for Cheiron Records prominently mentions Tim Coons and Christopher_Pasquin.    Attempts to create wikipedia pages regarding these people/groups were among the worst examples seen on Wikipedia regarding promotionalism and sockpuppetry in the field of record labels.  See Sockpuppet investigations/Professional Music Blogger/Archive, Articles_for_deletion/Rocket_Records, Articles_for_deletion/Christopher_Pasquin, Articles_for_deletion/Tim_Coons.  Therefore when a new article pops up regarding an entity involving these individuals, it seems right to view the article with some suspicion.  Although I don't want to put words in another editor's mouth, I presume the "lied shamelessly" is referring to the behavior of (now blocked) editors who were promoting these people and companies within the creation of these articles and in the previous AfD discussions regarding them.  I don't think Cheiron Records (the US version) has garnered enough attention to have a reliable source say they "lied shamelessly", therefore your argument is a red herring.
 * You keep stating the company is tied to the previous, Swedish Cheiron Studios. You have been asked numerous time to provide evidence.  Time and time again you have been unable to do so, instead relying on "numerous articles" "TV interviews" by these supposedly very famous people.  To save this article, all you have to do is provide reliable, independent sources providing in-depth coverage of the topic.  That's it.
 * You keep using circular reasoning to attempt to tie this US Cheiron Records to a relatively minor effort by the Swedeish Cheiron Studios. Unless the Swedish Cheiron Studios registered a trademark in the U.S. Trademark office for "Cheiron Records", anyone would be able to create a company by that name.  I presume the current Cheiron Records owners are bright enough to have done so, but it doesn't tie them to the Swedish company (which, being defunct long before the creation of this US company, is currently unable to do).  Yes, Cheiron Studios was highly notable.
 * Lots of non-notable people have been photographed with famous people. In fact, I have no doubt that Pasquin or Coons had some capacity in producing material at least peripherally related to famous groups.  They may even be on a first name basis with famous artists.  That doesn't make them notable, and neither Coons nor Pasquin are named in the credits on any of their hit albums.
 * You have asked that references be provided that prove Cheiron Records is not notable. That is a fallacy in logic, asking to prove a negative.  You might as well ask for sources to show that cats do not live on the ninth planet of the Hryth solar system.  It is up to the editors who are arguing the article should be kept that the US Cheiron Records is notable enough, as a separate and distinct subject, that it deserves an encyclopedia article.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 17:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree with with some of your points and shall I say "interesting" logic so to speak, and I completely disagree with some editors publicly making opinion-based statements stated as facts which can be construed as "slanderous" against accomplished individuals and companies in the music industry who none of us have evidence to support such obviously false slander. However, with that said, I will take the step of re-directing the Cheiron Records article back to the Cheiron Studios article for now, which I doubt anybody on this page will object to at the present moment. An article for Cheiron Records can be added back later as more sources pop up I suppose. I must say though that regarding this Tim Coons person I looked up after all the banter about him by other editors on this page, the AFD for that particular article (not the Pasquin or Rocket Records articles though) back in 2013 was done either out of pure stupidity or incompetence in my honest opinion (not an attack on other editors), because there are more than 20 reliable independent references about Coons and his company found online with a simple web search. I was not around on here editing music related articles back then, but those editors who deleted the Coons article obviously do not (or at least did not back then) understand Wiki guidelines for inclusion as it pertains to individuals such as Coons, even if the Pasquin and Rocket Records articles were no good or promotional advertising as has been stated. I just think too many "emboldened" Wiki editors do the community of music readers at large in particular a great disservice at times with overzealous and lousy editing, maybe caused by their own personal agenda(s) even, but I guess it is what it is. Ciao. Music2015 (talk) 06:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The article for Cheiron Records has been re-directed back to the Cheiron Studios article for now by myself, as seems to be the straight majority consensus here on this page, so this particular AFD discussion should now be closed for good unless there are any objections to that at all? Music2015 (talk) 06:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence from WP:RS that this company has encyclopedic notability or has any association with the previous company. -- Kinu  t/c 19:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 *  Redirect to Denniz Pop (with the history preserved under the redirect) . The edit here is disputed because no sources have been provided that definitely establish an association between Cheiron Records and the previous company Cheiron Studios. This source verifies the connection between Denniz Pop and Cheiron Records: "The concurrent debut album, Earthquake Visions, was released on producer Denniz Pop's Cheiron Records (later through Music For Nations in the UK) and saw them garner further critical support, including nominations for a Swedish Grammy plus Album Of The Year and Best Breakthrough Act ..." I was unable to find substantial coverage of the subject. Preserving the history will allow the redirect to be easily undone if editors in the future find more sources about the subject that could be used to source and expand the article significantly. Cunard (talk) 00:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is this article is about the American record label, and your information is about the Swedish subsidiary of Cherion studios. If any re-direct is done, it should be there, because that article already describes this minor operation of the studio.  Their few releases weren't generally successful, and therefore I think it's unlikely that it will attain any notability independent of the studio.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 03:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the correction. Cheiron Records says, "The label's name, brand, and history were revived in 2015 after initially being a part of the original Cheiron Studios music production entity. The label was founded in Sweden in 1992 by the late Denniz Pop, and was partially owned by BMG from 1992 to 1996." I agree that a redirect to Cheiron Studios would be better. But since this label was revived in 2015, it's possible that Cheiron Records will achieve success independent of Cheiron Studios in their future releases. Preserving the history under the redirect would make it easier to restore the article if that ever happened. Redirect to Cheiron Studios (with the history preserved under the redirect). Cunard (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I would be ok with merging, but I think it is best deleted, precisely because the article history should not be retained. The article, in its current form, has two parts: the part that pertains to Cherion Studios is already in that article, and the current US label is unrelated except as apparently named in tribute.  The article has been sanitized, and the history contains all manner of disinformation.  I think a re-direct back to Cherion Studios could in fact be created, but only after this is deleted.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 17:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Cheiron Studios (with the history preserved under the redirect). I agree with Cunard, this is the best option for right now. There is definitely some kind of connection between the "new" and "old" Cheiron music brand entities, though what that connection is specifically is up for debate due to limited or very old references. Preserving the history makes it easier to restore the article as (or if) better references become available and/or the label achieves more notable commercial success, so deleting it completely is unnecessary and does not serve the Wikipedia community of readers at large in the best manner, at least in my honest opinion. Music2015 (talk) 06:11, 30 June 2015 (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.