Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonial Records
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. Cirt (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Colonial Records
- Colonial Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The label is simply not notable.. Musiclover212 (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Non-trivial history of releases, including a very strong selling single by George Hamilton IV and releases by Billy "Crash" Craddock and other notable artists. One bit of coverage found here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep per above. Well established label. (GregJackP (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep per TenPoundHammer. "Just not notable" is not an argument for deletion. Jujutacular T · C 03:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per TPH. If it needs sources, find them, but don't turn it into AfD because you think it's "just not notable". — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeAllen (talk • contribs)
- keep by default, Nothing provided by nominator as to why its not notable. Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:14, 23 February 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.