Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SMH 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SMH Records[edit]

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

Delete, I originally nominated for CSD as A7 and G11 but notability claimed on talkpage. Label is brand new, founded in 2013. Sources provided show that they received coverage for raising 30m and another 2 offering Lindsey Lohan a contract. I do not believe it passes WP:CORPDEPTH and thereby also WP:GNG. It may be WP:TOOSOON--Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, You said "delete" even before I finished the page or added other sources. Just because it's a brand new label, doesn't mean it's not notable. The credible sources back up it's legitimacy. The page is also a stub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pearljambandaid (talk • contribs) 09:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G11, without prejudice to the question of whether the topic is notable. --j⚛e decker ^talk 23:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This months-old label doesn't seem to have actually released any music as yet. Article provides a number of sources, but they are variously primary, non-RS, and/or provide only side mentions of the subject, and I don't find anything better when searching. What is out there are rehashes of 2-3 press releases that they've circulated. Note: This entity appears to be wholly unrelated to the small Dutch house label or the small 70's soul label of the same name. I also agree with Joe Decker that this qualifies to be speedied as G11. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO I agree with both of you User:Hobbes Goodyear but once the claim of significance claim was made I didn't really have a choice. It has been reliably sourced that it is a partner with Caroline, does this mean it is a subsidiary of that company or just a company with a working relationship with Caroline? If it is indeed an actual property or subsidiary it will likely be redirected or merged into the parent article. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to merge or redirect anything into a parent article. As far as it being a subsidiary or not of Caroline, it's pretty clear that it is as it's listed on Caroline's own site as "featured partner" with their other labels. See here - http://caroline.com/partners

Pearljambandaid (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Records is distributor for a ton of independent labels ("partners"). I think that if we changed this article to a redirect and an actual reader landed there, their reaction be "huh?". If we are going to be less useful than a plain old Google search, then I think we should just bow out. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pearljambandaid I think the article may just be a little WP:TOOSOON. It may have the notability soon to warrant it's own article. Is there any criteria for your assignment that we can help you with? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question for (talk) a person for her publicity firm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Hyatt, contacted me and offered to sell her services to keep this SMH article on Wikipedia. She claimed she had a AFD reversed on her page and she would do the same for this one. This seems like a shady practice, or is it? Her wiki page doesn't seem notable at all especially with the weak sources from her own sites. Pearljambandaid (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely that is shady. I'm going to research a little and possibly alert admin. In the meantime have you had a chance to review any of the criteria we have and can you share iwth us the criteria you need to meet for your assignment. Possibly some of us may be able to help you meet it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I figured as much. Thanks for offering help with assignment. I finished it.Pearljambandaid (talk) 06:42, 14 March 2014 (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.