Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cavalier 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cavalier Records

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Creator restored after CSD this record label, who may have had some notable artists, 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. Un ref'ed for over 6 years. Codf1977 (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources to indicate notability. Guy (Help!) 13:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, made shellac records in the 78 era; hardly as insignificant a task as being a "record label" in recent generations. Recorded notable artists who have articles on them in Wikipedia. Infrogmation (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Recorded notable artists" that is a claim of WP:Inherited notability; and if as you claim they are notable for other things, where is the significant coverage ? Codf1977 (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even has two references now, which isn't bad for a stub :-) Lupo 14:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One is not independent, and the other is only a mention - so still fails WP:GNG. Codf1977 (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per Infrogmation’s rationale above. As the proposing editor has copy and pasted the “accusation” from the other several articles on records he/she has proposed for deletion, I reckon I can just copy and paste my earlier objections: Wikipedia:Notability “is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.” It is not unreasonable to presume that there is not, as yet, much material available online for referencing the subject matter at hand, which in no way reduces its notability. --Technopat (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Cavie78 (talk) 18:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still fails WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google Books search demonstrates substantial coverage, and hence notability.--Pink Bull 21:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.