Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sin Klub Entertainment

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. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sin Klub Entertainment

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

Non notable label created by a single purpose account that fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 30. Snotbot t • c » 00:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article has some problems (promotional language) but the core assertions seem to be verifiable based on Goole Book sources and the label seems to be somewhat significant. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources, falling short of WP:CORP. Any appearance of significance, which I do not see, is not supported by sources. The Books link above does little more than verify its existence and does not demonstrate its notability. This article is original research from someone connected to a founder. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2013 (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.