Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maloof music


 * 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. AfD is not a vote, and GassyGuy makes a very powerful argument. --Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 21:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Maloof music
Non-notable music label ENeville 16:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Kappa 16:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This record label is jointly owned by two notable organizations, Universal Music and the Maloof family. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm pretty inclusionist on record labels, but according to the Hollywood Reporter article, the label only has one artist, Spit Fiya, who doesn't even have an article themselves. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  21:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Universal and The Maloof family? Seems pretty notable. — Joshua Johaneman [[Image:Flag_of_New_York.svg|30px|]] 01:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete A lot of inconsequential labels (e.g., vanity labels) have notable owners. In the same way that being born to famous parents doesn't make one notable, a label being owned by famous entities is not enough to establish notability. Bring it back when it expands its roster, has a successful release, a major artist signed, or something marginally notable. GassyGuy 07:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Gassy and per Andrew Lenahan. JoshuaZ 23:32, 25 September 2006 (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.