Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suffokate


 * 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. Consensus is to delete. Since the article is close, if someone wants a user copy in case another source or two are found, let me know and I'll provide one. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Suffokate

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article was CSD'd as G11 and A7, but restored. Extremely weak claims of notability, with primary author claiming it meets criteria 5 of WP:BAND. Record label itself is barely notable in its own right, even though there's currently a Wikipedia article. The only source provided appears to be a user-edited website, that seems unlikely to pass the WP:RS test ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 21:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a notable subject, borderline advert.  Strongly agree with BWilkins.  - F ASTILY  (TALK) 22:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I wasn't able to find enough reliable sources which establish the subject's notability. Folgertat (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable. But please note that whether or not a record label or book publisher is notable has absolutely nothing to do with whether an album or book published by or a band or author making use of that label or publishing house are notable. By and large people don't care at all, if they even notice, what label something is on, any more than they pay attention to the colophons on books these days; technology makes it cheap for anyone to be a publisher, including of CDs, books, etc.; and reliable sources generally don't write reviews of labels or book publishers and give them independent, notability-generating major press unless something unusual is happening. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 18:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So you guys don't care about the WP:BAND? You just decide subjectively if the band is notable or not? I believe that WP:BAND and other similar rules were created so we wouldn't need to have arguments like these in the first place. --Runkulis (talk) 13:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep more than three full length audio releases out and signed to a notable label. Better sources could be found, but for now, this is what I got. I suggest giving the article a little time before deleting it again. • GunMetal Angel  18:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm of the opinion that Mediaskare Records lacks the roster of performers needed for wp:music #5. I did find some coverage that looks good. .  duffbeerforme (talk) 05:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Seem to be a couple of editors working to bring this article upto scratch. User:Duffbeerforme seems to have found a reasonable source to add. Pol430  talk to me 15:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Whenaxis  about talk contribs 23:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)




 * Delete - From what I was able see on the article (and by searching online), the article does not appear to meet the notability requirements, and the label does not meet the criteria of WP:MUSIC #5. - SudoGhost 00:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom, weak assertion of notability. -Cntras (talk) 09:24, 11 January 2012 (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.