Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheiron Records (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Consensus is clear. A redirect can be created separately; no one seems to be arguing to keep the content and replace it with a redirect. Drmies (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Cheiron Records
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable record label re-created again by editor with what I strongly believe to be an undeclared COI. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete none of the issues raised in the previous AfD have been addressed. signed,Rosguill talk 19:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Article has clear credible media sources and any label under Capitol Music and Universal getting mainstream news coverage is notable. The issue in the previous AfD appears to have been adequately addressed by the new article's author, so I respectfully disagree with you on this point Rosguill. --68.202.197.64 (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I have no conflict of interest and have based my updated article on current newsworthy mainstream entertainment media sources. The article has been updated using such appropriately, and I even made a new edit to satisfy the question of any unclear connection to the old Cheiron Studios. If anybody wants to disagree with my article updates that is one thing, but let's stay away from any inaccurate conflict of interest accusations based on one editor's strong opinion. Thank you. --Music2015 (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep This article should be a Stub for now with AfD consideration withdrawn. --2603:9001:305:6F00:F5E9:1FD2:9F28:3A54 (talk) 01:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not commenting on the reliability of the sources, the first source gives a drive-by mention, and the second source does not mention the label at all. Therefore WP:GNG is not close to being met.  My standards on notability for record labels are looser than most, but this is not notable by record label standards in that it has no length of history, no roster of notable artists, and can not claim to have made any perceptible impact on the direction of any particular genre.  Having a joint venture (distribution deal) with a major label does not inherit notability for a record label.  Now.... if Rhames goes on to have a #1 record, or even begins to sniff the charts, then we can re-evaluate, but at the very best this is WP:TOOSOON.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 23:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some longstanding disagreement going back a few years between the two primary contributors to this article. While I respect everybody's opinions and previous contributions, I simply see no justification for the deletion of this article at this time, especially with regards to other record labels of way lesser note which have had their articles remain intact, with the goal of improving upon said articles. This record label clearly passes the smell test for both notability and credibility in today's music industry, as both the article's references and a quick web search reaffirm. You do make some interesting points 78.26, and I respect your passion about this article's subject matter, but nevertheless I must again disagree with you about your proposed deletion of this article, be it due to WP:TOOSOON or otherwise. I think Music2015's update was justified and the article should remain, albeit with further improvements as time goes by. --68.202.197.64 (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I simply do not see anything new at all which has changed in the interim to sway my opinion from the previous AfD discussion above. I do agree with the editor who "stubbed" this article (again) recently though, as this article is the perfect Record Label Stub type article in my opinion while more notable information and reliable sources get added to it over time. --68.202.197.64 (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You've already voted keep above, so I have struck your second vote. SportingFlyer  talk  20:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete fails the general notability guideline. Keep voters' arguments are a mix of "other stuff exists" and pointing at nonexistent "clear credible media sources". Note to closer: IPs have not edited outside this AfD and 68.202.197.64 has !voted twice.  Tera TIX  01:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. NN. Szzuk (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete clear WP:GNG fail. Last AfD was a redirect, no issue if that's the ultimate decision here. SportingFlyer  talk  13:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Zero coverage, failing WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP as a business. No redirect, as it will just get recreated, unless protection is applied. scope_creep (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Cheiron Studios. Not creating a redirect that would be useful for the sole reason of "might be recreated" is not a good reason not to have the redirect; that's what protection is for.-- SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete.Clearly fails WP:GNG and the only thing that can be done with the article is to give a redirect to Cheiron Studios.Vinodbasker (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with the re-direct, and that was it's state before the article was re-created, yet again. The re-direct is useful.  Repeated re-creation of this unrelated, non-notable label is not.  The re-direct needs to be protected so that only extended-confirmed can edit, and I would do so except I am obviously very INVOLVED.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 13:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Article does not fail WP:GNG and the label is clearly notable in today's music industry as evidenced by its reputable sources, so at worst this article should be kept as a record label stub and added to as time goes by. I would stub it myself, but obviously I too am "very involved", so I will wait for another editor to do so. Re-directing this article to Cheiron Studios is definitely not appropriate. --Music2015 (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You've already voted keep above, so I have struck your second vote. SportingFlyer  talk  20:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Article’s references are both current and reputable enough to establish clear notability. 68.202.197.64 (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You've already voted keep above, so I have struck your third vote. SportingFlyer  talk  20:52, 22 October 2018 (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.