Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heldeep 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 keep. Merge/redirect can be discussed on talk as necessary but there are no arguments here to delete this outright. SoWhy 10:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Vanity label owned by DJ Oliver Heldens, mainly used for his own and associated releases. None of the sources discuss the subject significantly. Does not pass WP:CORP. King And God 09:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 10:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 10:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 10:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Bobherry  Talk   Edits  15:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 06:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete : a nn vanity label. Fails WP:NCORP / WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - not a vanity label at all, as it has released material by numerous notable artists who are independent of label's founder. A notable label per NMUSIC #5.  However, the article is promotional in nature.  The topic is an encyclopedic one of interest to musicologists, discographers, and music historians, but there's really not much in the article (as is) that is of help to these groups.  In short, notable topic, unhelpful article except for the discography section.  (And I'm torn on the appropriateness of a discography section for an ongoing concern because it is inherently promotional vs. my fervent wish that someone had documented ongoing concerns back in the 1930s, say.)   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 21:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NMUSIC is not applicable to record labels as it is only for artists, songs and albums. Record labels are companies and their guideline is WP:NCORP which was updated recently with consensus to a more stricter requirement on sources. Releasing material by notable artists is not at all a criterion for establishing notability on Wikipedia. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="color:#3292a8">King <u style="color:#6b32a8">And <u style="color:#3292a8">God 05:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect. What are record labels notable for?  Releasing notable music.  WikiProject Record labels several years ago moved from under the Business umbrella to the Music umbrella.  There is longstanding consensus that NMUSIC#5 is a guideline for record labels, as there is no specific notability guideline developed for record labels, despite repeated attempts.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 13:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to this, there doesn't appear to be consensus as some editors disagreed and few others agreed. I think that discussion should be reposted with RfC to gain consensus on whether record labels can be notable by passing the music guideline or not. I do support the idea of record labels being covered by WP:NMUSIC rather than WP:NCORP. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="color:#3292a8">King <u style="color:#6b32a8">And <u style="color:#3292a8">God 13:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 17:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep when I click on the "News" link above I find very substantial coverage in a variety of reliable independent sources. Even if it were not independently notable, a merge to the label's owner would be the appropriate outcome not deletion. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could present the substantial coverage of reliable sources here as I tried searching but couldn't find any? <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="color:#3292a8">King <u style="color:#6b32a8">And <u style="color:#3292a8">God 18:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A couple examples include this one and this one. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * These sources don't significantly discuss the label. There are just trivial mentions and one line about how the label has "garnered a cadre of success." See more here - WP:ORGCRIT. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="color:#3292a8">King <u style="color:#6b32a8">And <u style="color:#3292a8">God 18:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge per FloridaArmy. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Oliver Heldens; not independently notable. Fails WP:NCORP / WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.