Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doorn 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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doorn Records[edit]

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

Not notable vanity label associated with the DJ Sander van Doorn. Sources are all WP:PRIMARY - redirect to Spinnin' Records. Karst (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP It's definitely notable and the sources aren't primary (Beatport for example isn't a Doorn asset). If sourcing needs to be further expanded then it's better to use the appropriate tag at the top of the page. I especially object to the redirect on the basis that it is a "vanity label" (a subjective NPOV claim). Loginnigol (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources in this case are those that list the releases of the label without any context. They require some third party evaluation. Beatport can be listed in the external links, but are pretty much useless in the article. Doorn Records is described as a 'sub-label' and trawling through releases on discogs.com, they are largely linked to van Doorn. Since 2013 Spinnin' Records has been pushing other acts and collaborations through their battery of sub-labels to promote one-off digital releases. It should redirect unless some notability of the sub-label can be established. Karst (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable label that can use expansion. There are significant coverage of reliable sources on Google. - TheMagnificentist 06:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per above, it's a notable label that can use expansion. There are significant coverage of reliable sources on Google. 141.138.146.132 (talk) 10:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm staying out of this a little bit since I got involved with the creator's unblock request, but I just want to point out that the above users provide no proof of notability. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 17:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe someone can prove me wrong. A news search returned 300+ results, but I looked through the first five pages and literally all of them look like passing mention. Half or more are from a single site (youredm.com). ...And by passing mention I mean that nearly all of the results are literally just TimothyJosephWood's new album Deletion (Doorn Records), a single mention of the name. There were a couple of interviews with the founder but they were all blogs. Corresponding articles on the French and Portuguese Wikipedia's aren't any better sourced. Finally, the fact that there is no entry at all on the Dutch Wikipedia (even though there is a definite red link on the article for the parent company) makes me think we might be done here. TimothyJosephWood 18:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Aside from a few passing mentions, nothing really shows up to represent the notability required.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - st170e, I think it's just inappropriate to close the discussion as keep then re-open it two hours later. - TheMagnificentist 08:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheMagnificentist: I was asked on my talk page to reopen the discussion. Non-admin closures are supposed to be non controversial so I complied with the request regardless. st 170e 13:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- appears to be a "vanity" label for the more notable DJ (Sander van Doorn). One article is sufficient in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:39, 7 January 2017 (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.