Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jam Master Jay 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 keep, as there was no consensus. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 17:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC) non-admin closure[reply]

Jam Master Jay Records

Fails WP:CORP because there's no non-trivial coverage from secondary sources. All that is really said about the label is that it was founded by Jam Master Jay. So the depth of coverage is not substantial enough for its own article. Spellcast 17:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand; its stable included 50 Cent and Onyx and was founded by Jam Master Jay; that's notable enough in my eyes. Andy Saunders 17:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You would think so upon first glance, but notability is not inherited. A famous artist being signed to an imprint label does not automatically make the label notable. For example, see the AfDs/deleted articles for Ca$hville Records, Infamous Records, Dumout Records, G'$ Up, G-Unit West, and 150 Entertainment. 50 Cent and Onyx are notable. This is not. Spellcast 17:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only references seem to be trivial and after Jam Master Jay's passing. Possible redirect?--Sethacus 21:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless non-inherited notability is found Corpx 05:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag: The label appears to have been around during the late 1980s, and survived until his death. Due to the time period when the label was around I would say it is fair to say that many, if not all, reliable sources that may exist might not be found online but in library periodical collections. I don't think it will hurt to let this one go and see if it can be salvaged. IvoShandor 11:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should favour keeping an article on the basis that someone could add a non-online source, which may not even exist for all we know. WP:V requires in-depth, non-secondary sources to establish notabilty. Spellcast 07:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should be saying "on the basis that someone could add a source." I don't think the encyclopedia's policies care where the source comes from.IvoShandor 16:20, 8 September 2007 (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.