Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sargasso 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   keep. (non-admin closure) → ♠ Gƒoley ↔ Four ♣ ← 00:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sargasso Records

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No evidence of notability. All of the references contain only very brief mention of Sargasso Records, mostly in the form of credit for production of recordings. (PROD was removed by IP editor without any explanation.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. A record label with such a long history and a track record of releases by notable artists should have an article in this encyclopedia. Verifiability isn't a problem here despite an apparent lack of in-depth coverage of the label itself, and deleting articles like this one will not benefit the encyclopedia.--Michig (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. There seems to be enough notability of the artists that are released on the label. I believe keeping the article will only strengthen the encylopedia Solubleduck (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The number of notable artists on the record label should be able to link to this article. Therefore, the article should stay. I would recommend though linking to the article where necessary. Malcolm.che (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as per User:Michig.Hillcountries (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The work of this label in recording and promoting the music of Jonathan Harvey certainly makes it notable, though this is not evident from the current state of the article.  Adding some references to third-party reviews would help.  --Deskford (talk) 03:50, 10 February 2011 (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.