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, default to keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clover Records

[edit]

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

Creator restored after CSD this record label, who may have had some notable artists, is not it's self notable. (see WP:Inherited) - Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG as it has not had significant coverage of it's own. Un ref'ed for over 6 years. Codf1977 (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources to indicate notability. Guy (Help!) 13:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, listed in Brian Rust's American Record Label Book; subjects which are have entries in standard specialty reference works are legitimate topics for Wikipeida. This is a pre-Great Depression shellac 78 record company. I additionally argue that record companies from this era tend to be sufficently notable from this alone, since making records in that era needed a considerable amount of industrial investment, closer to being an automobile company than the very different situtuation of how easy it was to start what was called a "record company" in more recent decades. Having historic record label listings online is a help to 78 collectors. Infrogmation (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per the rationale given at the other record articles for AfD the proposing editor has copy–pasted his/her objections to. Wikipedia:Notability “is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.” It is not unreasonable to presume that there is not, as yet, much material available online for referencing the subject matter at hand, which in no way reduces its notability.--Technopat (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 01:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Cavie78 (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google Book search demonstrates substantial coverage, hence notability.--Pink Bull 21:57, 21 June 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.