Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramp Recordings

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 delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 21:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ramp Recordings

Ramp Recordings (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This article asserts notability on the basis of signings to contract deals. Before this author began editing, these artists' only signing was indicated to be a different, and definitely notable independent label. The only links that seem to attempt to verify notability are the official site [www.ramprecordings.com], which is only a reserved holding page with no content, MySpace, and a user-submitted entry at discogs.com.

Having performed a search through Google, I cannot find any reliable secondary sources which might demonstrate notability. Since the article asserts notability through signings, and as the PROD was removed, I am bringing this to AfD on the grounds that it does not meet, and does not appear capable of meeting, the requirements of WP:COMPANY. Fritzpoll (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

EDITED —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basstheworld (talk • contribs) 00:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Website is active.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basstheworld (talk • contribs) 15:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I only know that the website was inactive when I nominated. Other editors should take note of the fact that the official website is now active when considering this AfD - Fritzpoll (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing to suggest that this is a major independent label as defined at WP:MUSIC, to wit around more than a few years with a sizable stable of notable artists, and no secondary sources to verify notability for general organizations. The numbering scheme on their discography in the article suggests on the contrary that they are relatively new. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:41, 1 March 2008 (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.