Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silvertone Records (1930)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silvertone Records (1930)[edit]

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

Contested PROD - Un-sourced 1 line article on a "short-lived British record label" with no claim to significance. Unable to find sources that appear to be about this company as opposed to the US company of the same name Silvertone Records (1905) or the later British one, also of the same name Silvertone Records (1980). Codf1977 (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A 15 minute google search found most of the information now included. Perhaps the remedy is not to use automatic tools to try to delete stubs, but rather a little bit of "elbow grease" to bring it up to at least minimal standards. I had no prior interest in the topic. It just goes to show that seemingly inadequate articles can, given sufficient time and minimal effort, be useful and useable. I hope the nominator enjoys his period of retirement.smjwalsh (talk) 11:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-verifiable. All G-hits refer back to this article. In any case, would not there have been legal action by US-Silvertone against another record company of the same name, albeit in a different market? Eddie.willers (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and well done for fleshing out the bones, adding refs etc. Eddie.willers (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As the US company was non-operative from 1931 until the 1940s, and the UK company was only active 1933 to 1935, it would have been a difficult case to bring. Also, as it was the Great Depression, it was probably not cost-effective to pursue. Anyway, hope recent revisions to the article may convince you to change your opinion.smjwalsh (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Concerns of original nominator now addressed. Article has potential for improvement and sources identified that would allow that.smjwalsh (talk) 14:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The need for the article is self-evident in its current state, but the case for deletion wasn't particularly credible from the start. Chubbles (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above and it now has some references. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good job by Smjwalsh |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 02:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now fully expanded and ref'd to show notability. Recommend nom sends all record labels to AfD first, instead of proding/speedy tagging them. There's no harm done if they are completly un-remarkable and get deleted this way. Lugnuts (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2010 (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.