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. Daniel Olsen 05:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A non notable label full of non notable bands that fail WP:MUSIC. T REX_speak 23:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - 87,800 GHits seems like a lot for a non-notable imprint[1]. Defunct and not a great article but that's not a bar of itself. Needs cleaned up rather than deleted. Ac@osr 14:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Yomangani^talk 10:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Deletion is not cleanup. This is a perfectly good and valid central point to chronicle the "non notable" bands published under the label. Many otherwise non notable bands should be found under their publishing label rather than deleted. Unfocused 16:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is a notable record label. It is too bad that the list of artists takes up so much of the article with so little information. Bejnar 19:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It looks like a notable yet defunct record label which is still attracting a lot of attention. Yamaguchi先生 19:42, 1 November 2006
• Comment anyone have any reliable sources saying that this is notable? T REX_speak 20:34, 1 November 2006 (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.