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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Listenable Records[edit]

Listenable Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Unfortunately the PROD was removed by 78.26 so here we are for a full AfD and I confirm what I said with my PROD "Likely even speedy material if it wasn't for the current amount of bands but searches unsurprisingly found nothing but then again this seems like an independent obscure field and area.". My searches simply found nothing better to suggest this is a notable and otherwise considerably known record label and I've actually also nominated several of the listed bands for deletion (Pale Forest was speedied as A7 with hardly much content to begin with) as they seemed non-notable with no obvious improvement and then there are also some that have no article at all (red links).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - really? It's unfortunate to have a discussion? That's interesting. I think that a label that has been around for longer than a decade, and has signed more than 30 bands with wikipedia articles might deserve to be looked into a bit before being deleted by uncontested prod. Maybe it's not notable, this isn't my type of music, and I don't know anything (yet) about the label, but what's wrong with looking a bit deeper, and hopefully by several editors knowledgeable about the subject? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think we need someone who is more familiar with search results in French. There are a ton of references but I am not going to copy and paste them all into Google Translate and then try to figure out which publications are realiable. In English, there are quite a few sources, not just band signings. If you search Google Books [1] you will find quite a few mentions in books on metal. Not sure how much coverage you would require. I understand that record labels are companies, but when you have one with so many signed bands and nothing other than mentions of signings, this could be a case for ignore all rules. Just my humble opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - searching google books and google news, this appears to be a MAJOR player in the European metal music scene. Not my type of music at all, but the fact there are more than 40 notable bands that have at one point signed to the label, and the broad geographic coverage their album releases have received indicates that this label is having significant impact on culture, and is worthy of an encyclopedic entry. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:19, 18 December 2015 (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.