Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thug Life Army 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.  Singu larity  18:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thug Life Army Records

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Org that fails to establish notability Lugnuts (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; article is about intentions and goals, but no actual notability is evidenced. -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  19:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete doesn't even really make any real claims to notability. -Drdisque (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If evidenced then you guys would say it is advertising. The project they have now is gaining alot of respect in the hip hop community and with many hip hop organizations. But as soon as it is mentioned it will be deemed advertising. This label is notabil and is making news. HHRBHHRB (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I removed the speedy on this. As I indicated at the time, a cursory Google search reveals this is a notable record label (if I understand correctly, they are posthumously releasing Tupac's music?). My suggestion to the above editor, and anyone who wishes to keep the article, is to add pertinent news media references about Thug Life to the article. If editors see that it does have real world notability, I'm sure they will vote to retain. But they need to see that in the article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Tupac is an inspiration only, my mistake. Anyway, I am neutral at this point. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's making news, then perhaps those news items should be pointed out - Google News turns up one single item, and that's a press release that won't do it for reliable sources. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 21:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I speedied it originally. I still think it should have been a speedy.  I see nothing especially notable about this label.  Dipics (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes and I see now that I was in error in unspeedying it. I misunderstood the Tupac reference. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * First it was trouble with the user name I used for 2 years, so I changed it. Then it was the logo (which there is a licesence for) was not good enough. Seems that delete was a sure thing from the beginning. Delete it, it was that way from the start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HHRB (talk • contribs) 17:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't be (too) disappointed if it's deleted. Just remember that if and when this label starts to get some notable press coverage, an article can be created then. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not going to worry about it. To many hoops to jump thru for some of these people. Information is information and for some of these dudes who have no clue to comment on something they appearently have no knowledge of is ludicris. I have had to get people in touch with lawyers so they could ok my edits, I have had to change my user name (I uesed for 2 years) everything someone does here is a waste of time. And I do not have a lot of time to waste. I am actually doing something and not just sitting back guessing. Thanks and no offense to you. HHRB (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC) HHRB


 * 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.