Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GMT 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 procedural keep. Well, that was a flop. Even after being given a delete reason, and being relisted, no real solid outcome was achieved. Given that this has been going for 16 days, 15 with an actual nomination, I can't see the point in {{relist}}ing it yet again. Daniel.Bryant 07:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GMT Records

GMT Records (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

—— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 21:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh crap, somehow I listed this without a reason, all of you feel free to slap me a few times! Anyway, the original reason for me listing this was as failing to demonstrate the importance of the subject. This is a new record label. I also do did not see any sources as to why this has any importance. Of course it looks like the article has been updated since my flawed nomination. As such I still think it can use some help with notability, (what makes this special, and or worthy of note?). I apologize for the bad nomination. —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 00:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What was the reason for this article being listed for deletion? Would it be useful to re-merge it back into Aozora Records as at [1] ? Foxhill 21:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep - no reason given for deletion. --- RockMFR 22:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Aozora Records. We are sort of missing a nominating statement here, but this seems like the reasonable thing to do. --Brianyoumans 22:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep due to no argument presented for deletion. Tarinth 23:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: the above comments came before the deletion rationale was added at 00:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC). Daniel.Bryant 07:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Centrx→talk • 13:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or merge. Information is notable enough to have on wikipedia. Where is not an AfD question. Eluchil404 07:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

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.