Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illegal 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 keep. Cirt (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal Records

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

I can't find significant coverage for this record label. Joe Chill (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I get a lot of unrelated stories when I search for "Illegal Records", but I get three useful hits when I search for "Illegal Records" and "The Clash". See these results. This search also comes up with some hits, tantalizing glimpses of stuff hidden behind paywalls. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This search (which includes the name of the label's founder) provides the references the article needs. Even without those references, the fact of having issued several notable recordings by several notable musical groups would be enough to establish notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not true. You're totally ignoring WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to I.R.S. Records. Notable enough to deserve a place in Wikipedia, but not quite enough for its own article. Reference: [1]. (Same goes for Faulty Products and Deptford Fun City Records.) Location (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's an important label, the information is easily verified and it's better in its own article rather than trying to merge it somewhere else.--Michig (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge, as there is no evidence of notability for this record label. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Whilst it needs a proper rewrite, a quick look at its releases [2], coupled with the fact that its founder is a notable person, suggests notability. My recommendation would be to leave it as a rewritten stub, I'm fairly sure there will be offline references as this company was operating before the advent of the internet. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Label's influence in early days of punk is substantial, as are the releases made over its history. Intuitively, i'm not certain that WP:CORP is an exact match here, as it is very difficult to separate the artists and releases of a label from the label itself. I guess I would use Sun Records as an example (not as a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or WP:WAX!)- there is nothing particularly noteworthy about the business aspect of Sun, but they are a notable entity based on their artists and releases. In a way, a label is like a creative entity who make a significant (and noteworthy) contribution to creative works. Vulture19 (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Released the Police's first single, run by Miles Copeland heavily enfluenced the pop-punk and college radio of the 80's. I could see a merge with I.R.S. Records, but a rewrite would be better. Web Warlock (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2010 (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.