Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting elvis

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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines at this time. Davewild (talk) 09:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting elvis

Contested PROD. Non-notable record label launched last month, none of its current artists have articles on Wikipedia, no sources in article to illustrate its notability. Google search for "Shooting Elvis" with record label gets 93 unique hits. Roleplayer (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the artists on this label are notable; Tommy Four Seven is a red link, and there is otherwise no assertation of notability for this label. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no reliable sources that would establish notability, and none of its artists are notable. Bláthnaid 18:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable --Pustefix (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is non notable. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 20:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete James Kronier has only had said one release so isn't currently of much note but other acts signed to label are definitely of note... See http://www.discogs.com/artist/Remute for remute's long list of releases etc. All artists bar James Kronier have releases on beatport, Tommy Four Seven has many releases on itunes etc... These guys are established (t47 has released on about 6 labels etc) - the fact Steve Bug hasn't even got a wikipedia entry questions whether moderators should be striving to delete knowledge or share it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akgc414 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also consider checking out mark broom's discogs page which is huge but still incomplete: http://www.discogs.com/artist/Mark+Broom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akgc414 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this label is pretty cool, got the first release - i agree about the steve bug point. there definatly needs to be more articles on techno —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.68.169 (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - first release only one month ago and no artists that apparently comply with WP:MUSIC indicate that this organisation has a problem meeting WP:CORP as well (people who have posted without signatures, please note: 1) deletion discussions revolve around Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as the two with blue links in this post; and 2) please sign all posts here and on article talk pages with ~~~~. Thank you!). B.Wind (talk) 03:51, 26 April 2008 (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.