Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melodic Revolution 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 10:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Melodic Revolution Records

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

No coverage in secondary sources; promotional. Blackguard 22:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an individual, who is directly interested in Progressive Rock community worldwide, I have been monitoring the discussion regarding Melodic Revolution Records page. I have added a several relevant sources into the article as required, according to this discussion. Will take care of doing more once I find a little more free time. Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:883:C600:D95:5C27:F41B:6A1 (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 2A02:1811:883:C600:D95:5C27:F41B:6A1 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion about it: Talk: Melodic_Revolution_Records. Please read all the comments. There are several artists who have their own Wikipedia page linked to Melodic Revolution Records wikipedia page. And more will come ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisgeorges (talk • contribs) 09:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC) I have added a various links to the secondary sources regarding both the label itself and its activities and references to the artists it is working with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:883:C600:AC81:15A9:D9D2:1A7 (talk) 11:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 2A02:1811:883:C600:AC81:15A9:D9D2:1A7 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For all the reasons stated above.

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.