Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spoonjuice 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 Speedied --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Month-old British record label; not notable yet. NawlinWiki 02:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:MUSIC and WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fewer than 40 unique Ghits, and as far as I could see none of them were verifiable sources that focused exclusively on the subject. Maybe it'll be back when notability can be established. -- H·G (words/works) 05:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SynergeticMaggot (talk • contribs) sorry :p SynergeticMaggot 19:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete according to WP:CORP. In time, this might become notable, but I agree with NawlinWiki -- a month-old record label doesn't seem notable enough. Scorpiondollprincess 16:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. -- Steel 22:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm laughing as I vote Delete to this 216.141.226.190 04:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, actually seeing that the owner is a notable person with credits in IMDB and not some "twenty-something" I think I'm all that, maybe a merge and redirect with Rob Cohen is also appropriate. 216.141.226.190 04:28, 18 July 2006 (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.