Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dolphin Music

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 to delete. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 23:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphin Music[edit]

WP:CORP. Lacks significant coverage in secondary sources. Second source appears to be a press relese, leaving one short article. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Contested prod. Reason was "Clearly notable." Duffbeerforme (talk) 08:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dolton Records - current article is lacking in coverage in independent, reliable sources, indicating the notability of the UK label. Dolphin Records was the original name of the US label Dolton Records, most noted for being the label of The Ventures and The Fleetwoods. "Dolphin Music" is a common mistake in referring to Dolphin Records. B.Wind (talk) 05:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whispe ring 04:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dolton Records per B.Wind. Current article lacks a convincing assertion of notability, and a redirect would be useful. Reyk _YO! 08:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 37th fastest-growing company in the UK, plus multimillion pound turnover suggest sufficient notability. WWGB (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What's the policy on how many times an article gets relisted "to generate a more thorough discussion"? IMO, this should have been closed as no-consensus (defaulting to keep) after the 2nd relisting failed to expand the discussion. Lugnuts (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2008 (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.