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 no consensus No prejuice against immediate relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2419 Record Label

[edit]

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

Unremarkable record label. Article is not supported by any first- of third-party sources. Also, it is written as an advertisement, directly pasted from the label's website. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 16:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well it has a first-party external link. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 16:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BEFORE. The issue at AfD is not whether the article currently has appropriate sources: it's whether appropriate sources actually exist. If you feel the article is a blatant copyright violation, nominate it for speedy deletion. Dricherby (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found no evidence of any notable artists who use this label. Dew Kane (talk) 16:09, 30 May 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 2 June 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, →TSU ^tp* 03:53, 9 June 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, →TSU ^tp* 06:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close no compelling arguement for deletion has been presented, despite constant relisting. Lugnuts (talk) 09:27, 16 June 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.