Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Necessary Records (2nd nomination)

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. Wifione ^Message 04:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Necessary Records

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Has been mentioned at least twice in Billboard here and here and several times in Music Week but these are behind paywalls. I added one of the Billboard refs confirming its founder and year of creation. Also notified WikiProject Companies/Record Labels Task Force of this discussion. J04n(talk page) 00:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources are tangential at best. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The label has multiple charted releases (singles and albums) in multiple countries. Yes, all with a single band, but it has signed multiple bands, so it's not a vanity label. Has been around for 9 years, so not fly-by-night. The article needs a ton of help, undoubtedly, but the subject is inherently notable. 78.26 (talk) 03:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. A band the label represents has charted releases and been nominated for several awards. The label has multiple bands on the roster. Dan arndt (talk) 05:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This subject fails WP:GNG; WP:CORPDEPTH is particularly lacking in coverage. Trivial mentions in great sources are trivial nonetheless, and having multiple clients doesn't aggregate notability on that basis alone. It'd be something else if a few bands themselves were notable. JFHJr (㊟) 00:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The label was responsible for the release of Hard-Fi's debut album, which ended up peaking at #1 on the UK album charts. The label was responsible for the band signing to Atlantic Records in 2004. All this can be found on a number of sources, including Billboard Magazine, which is not trival and not tangential in its reporting of the influence that the label has had in the band's success. Dan arndt (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2012 (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.