Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Underdog 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 delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Underdog Records

Underdog Records (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete fails notability, released (apparently) some records by local Chicago bands, none of which appear to be notable (with the possible exception of Oblivion (band)), fails wp:corp. Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Seems to fail WP:CORP; one (possibly) notable band doesn't a notable label make. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete notability. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --PeaceNT (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 23:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable record company. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Has more than one notable band as evidenced by the article itself - also Screeching Weasel used to be on this label. The fact that it's independent and obscure doesn't preclude notability. Delete per below Wisdom89 (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

How does it meet wp:corp ? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't - you're correct. It does not have any significant coverage (not even a modicum) in secondary sources. Wisdom89 (talk) 00:54, 7 February 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.