Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brainiak 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. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brainiak Records

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

A defunct UK record label that appears to fail WP:N and WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches in GNews archives and Books are only providing passing mentions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please do not use "defunct" as one of the reasons for deleting an article about a business, since Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages directory of businesses currently in operation, and since notability is not temporary. The only question is "Was it ever notable?" Edison (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Edison. "Defunct" was used simply to describe the label, and is not a deletion rationale. Per WP:NTEMP, "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I was able to find a couple of passing mentions (here and here in old Billboard magazines and here in Blues & Soul) but nothing that could be considered "significant coverage". I'm conscious that the subject was an independent label that operated through the 80s and 90s and closed more than 10 years ago. Online coverage is unlikely and there's just no way of knowing if contemporary media coverage (from the 80s and 90s) would been enough to consider the subject notable. Happy to consider anything anyone finds but for now, there's no evidence this was notable then (per WP:NOTTEMP) or is notable now (per WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH). Cheers, Stalwart111 02:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. However, if any of the records are found to be notable, I suggest keeping this page and expanding the section on that particular record. 1292simon (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2012 (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.