Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rottweiler 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 redirect‎ to Christian metal#Record labels without prejudice against a selective merge, if appropriate. Owen× ☎ 12:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rottweiler Records

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

NCORP fail Graywalls (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Indiana. Graywalls (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fairly clearly meets the sense of an important label as given in the WP:MUSIC guideline, and the article has citations indicating the label gets regular coverage in music press. Chubbles (talk) 06:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I’d love to agree with you, because they seem really interesting, but… NCORP not NMUSIC is the right standard to judge them on, and everything I can see in the article is either passing coverage, or basic business process (the sale to new owners) coverage… but nothing giving any sort of extended coverage of the company itself. It’s all “band x signs to Rottweiler Records” and then a ton about band x, but nothing about the company. So weirdly they would count for the band’s notability, but not the company’s. Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as there doesn't seem to be any in-depth secondary coverage of Rottweiler Records itself as a label. There are a lot of sources cited in the article but they are mostly articles about individual album releases or announcements about bands signing with them, with minimal commentary about Rottweiler Records itself. (Agree with above comment that there is a lot here that adds to the notability of the individual bands though.) As for mainstream media coverage, there isn't much in ProQuest except a few articles in The Hindu about R.A.I.D. which mention Rottweiler as their label (like this article from 2018) and several articles about a different Rottweiler Records based in Tacoma, which promotes hip-hop. Fails WP:NCORP. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle:, since this article was potentially discussed as merge-to target for Nosral Recordings, can you take a look at that article's AfD as well? Graywalls (talk) 02:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !vote to merge and redirect to Christian_metal#Record labels as an WP:ATD. The section on Christian metal record labels currently lacks any sources. At minimum, we could add some of the sources cited in this article there. Will take a look at Nosral Recordings separately. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2024 (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.