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. The charge that WP:NORG was not meet was not addressed successfully. I do not see a strong case for a redirect: the fact that the label's founder also founded Fearless Records (a page that doesn't mention the subject) doesn't seem to be sufficient. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thriller Records[edit]

Thriller Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Non notable organization that fails WP:NORG as a WP:BEFORE shows user generated sources, and Vendor sources. WP:ORGDEPTH is a major fail here. Celestina007 (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing written about this in sources of broad interest, just non-reliable sources and trade press. FalconK (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting the page creator's comment on the article's talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Music magazines would not be described as trade press - that refers to publications intended for people who work in the industry. There is https://loudwire.com/avoid-thriller-records-hostage-beach-house-party-video/ from Loudwire and coverage from Substream Magazine[1][2] that could be used in expanding the article (also https://ocmusicnews.com/thriller-records/, but that's probably less significant and based on an interview). I don't think these are user generated or vendor sources either. Editors watching the Music deletion list are more likely to know whether these are sufficient coverage, and may find additional sources. A865 (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Changed to keep or redirect (to Fearless Records#History). A865 (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. A865 (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Fearless Records. It seems like a new company that could have more content written about them in the future but they still might be too new to have any significant coverage. LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't object to redirecting, but content would have to be merged and added to describe how the labels are related, as it is not currently mentioned. A865 (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment — An organization passes the relevant criteria when both NORG & ORGDEPTH are satisfied & when WP:SIRS is applicable, in the absence of this, we are dealing with a WP:NCORP fail. “It seems like a new company that could have more content written about them in the future” following WP:CRYSTALBALL, we cant predict, I don’t think redirecting would be a good fit either. Celestina007 (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The sources I mentioned seem to be reliable, not "user generated sources, and Vendor sources" (one publication is the subject of an article, the other is cited in several articles), I'm just not sure if they are significant enough for WP:NCORP - in a way it is routine coverage, and the reason it's being written about is because of the association with Fearless Records and its founder. There is no notability requirement for redirects, the company would be worth mentioning in that article and the sources are enough for that, and it would be incorrect to replace the links from other articles with direct links to Fearless Records. A865 (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your response to my rationale above doesn’t appear to be In accordance with my comment, I didn’t say anything about vendor sources or user generated sources in my comment above, I mentioned WP:NORG not being met and WP:SIRS not being applicable, there simply is no WP:SIGCOV as required by NCORP, so I’m not entirely sure why your reply isn’t in synergy with my comment directly above. Celestina007 (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with nom, there isn't enough written about the company to satisfy WP:NCORP, not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:36, 13 February 2022 (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.