Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Higher Step 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 no consensus (keep)—no new comments since relisting, and both sides have developed reasonable arguments. — Deckill er 20:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Step Records[edit]

Record label article with no independent external sources, thus no outside assertion of notability. No verifiability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has notability, the author was just too lazy to note it. The two bands it refers to are legitimate bands, that achieved moderate fame. While it may seem a little one-sided to use Google again, but it proves that there is at least some assertion of notability that just wasn't included in this article. Certainly, the article needs to be drastically improved, as it is not really any more than a couple of lists. However, there is certainly possibility for some improvement, and while I doubt it will ever become an FAC with the current available information, it can at least sate someone who wants to know a little about an indie rock label.-Ljlego 23:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The label does not seem to be a major independent record label as defined by Wikipedia:notability (music): an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable. It seems to fail notability as a commercial enterprise as well. --Moonriddengirl 13:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ljlego. Please, read WP:DP. An article may be deleted given "[a]rticle information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources." An article may be deleted if "[a]ll attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed." An article may not be deleted because no one feels like digging up the sources which are readily available in plenitude. — xDanielx^Talk 00:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per xDanielx. Mathmo ^Talk 03:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 18:59, 10 August 2007 (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.