Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relapse 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relapse_Records[edit]

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

obscure label, maybe spam? Ubot16 (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep – Nomination did not even address any real issues with policies or guidelines. Relapse Records is one of the more prominent heavy metal labels and meets the general notability guidelines. Fezmar9 (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable independent metal label. Provides a substantial number of in-links to WP articles by bands on the label. Carrite (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Relapse is far from obscure, it is one of the bigger independent metal labels and distributors with a relatively long history and massive discography of prominent bands. The article just needs a lot of work, something I mean to deal with when I get some time. Cheers! Ibanez Guy (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Why the heck was this nominated for deletion? Notability clearly established in the article. 68.45.109.14 (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Being "obscure" is not a reason for deletion. Although unreferenced and badly in need of cleanup, this article should not be deleted. Here are some links. I'm pretty sure this is a good faith effort, BTW. Nolelover 22:43, 20 September 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.