Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sublight 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   delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Sublight Records

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Queried speedy delete request. See Talk:Sublight Records. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep This page is not unambiguously promotional, because it is an established record company that has released albums from several established artists . I believe the motion for deletion to be personal and/or malicious intent and should be disregarded. --StuOnThis (talk) 18:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep This article is being wrongfully targeted due to a vandal with a personal vendetta against one of the artists related to it. This whole issue has arisen due to a handful of users (or one user under multiple aliases, as is being discussed here: Sockpuppet_investigations/Musicchief007), with a personal vendetta against certain members of the electronica music scene. After several failed attempt at vandalizing Benn_Jordan (seen in their contributions page), they began a campaign of spamming moderators of this community to delete articles surrounding them. While they succeeded in inciting a nomination to delete the article. There's been a tremendous backlash from the community and a ton of supporting evidence to demonstrate their notability which will likely result in the nomination being dropped and hopefully in the article being protected against further vandalism.  AThey have, however, apparently succeeded in inciting mods to delete some of the surrounding articles. Hopefully the evidence that this article's deletion is owed to vandals is sufficient to end this campaign against these articles and allow them to be properly fleshed out, since notability takes more effort to establish in a genre of music that is not as dominated by major labels as many of the others. Alainbryden (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * DELETE label is dufunct. Fails WP:Music. Largely unsourced.88.194.149.117 (talk) 05:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - getting back to policy discussions, the fact that it may or may not be defunct is irrelevant to whether or not it should be kept. Notability is not temporary. An example of that would be CBGB, a now defunct club in NYC, but highly notable. However, that said, there is nothing here to show the notability of this label. Searches on News turned up 3 trivial mentions, a single mention on Scholar, a few trivial mentions on Books, zero on Newspapers and Highbeam. Fails WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unless someone can find significant coverage from reliable, independent sources, (?) we don't have enough info for an article. It had no in-depth coverage in any regular search, or in my music source custom search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Sure, the Benn Jordan nomination might have been purely disruptive, but there is a lack of sourcing here. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ping me. czar  18:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The Benn Jordan article should have been removed. The non consideration of the votes to DELETE the article were not in line with Wiki Standards as they offered a fair and balanced point of view as opposed to him and his personal friends rummaging around wikipedia to keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.194.149.117 (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The above comment was added by a blocked user evading their block. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:49, 30 December 2015 (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.