Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midas Records Nashville


 * 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. The consensus is that the sources TenPoundHammer has found are sufficient. NAC— S Marshall T/C 18:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)'''

Midas Records Nashville

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Record label, who may have some notable clients, is not it's self notable. (see WP:Inherited) - Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG as it has not had significant coverage of it's own. Codf1977 (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, needs multiple 3rd party reliable sources to be so.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or possibly merge to Koch Records, its distributing label. Several significant artists on the label; making this a redlink is counterproductive. I could see transferring the information to Koch's page as a reasonable close. Chubbles (talk) 07:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep record labels are usually considered notable per WP:MUSIC if they have had a significant history and multiple notable acts; heck, Emerson Drive had a #1 hit on the label. Beyond that, there does appear to be a bit of third party coverage: This, this and this look like good places to start. Most of the non-trivial coverage comes from 2007. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that they are mentions - but don't think that they are WP:GNG or WP:CORP's significant coverage - I still say that it falls well short of being Notable as for notable acts assoicated with the company, is not that a claim of inherited notability ? That all said would not argue with a redirect to E1 Music ( Koch Records redirects there) as per Chubbles as it is a possible search term. Codf1977 (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know, the Billboard one seems pretty authoritative in particular. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge per Chubbles. The label was notable for a while and had three artists who produced to top 40 Billboard hits, most notably Emerson Drive, who are no longer with the label as of last year. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 02:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per TPH. Eric444 (talk) 05:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect - and merge perhaps a single comment to Koch Records. Its uncited after three years, there appears to be no independent coverage. Off2riorob (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Recommend closure of WP:OLD. moreno oso (talk) 13:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per TenPoundHammer's thoughts, he's a knowledgeable source on these type of AFDs.--Milowent (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2010 (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.