Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galilee of the Nations (2nd nomination)

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. Tone 18:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Galilee of the Nations

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines for companies and It has not been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Lack of WP:SIGCOV Cox wasan (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This appears to be refutable on its face; despite the label not meeting WP:MUSIC's sense of one of the more important indie labels, it still seems to reach the GNG without a significant roster, as it's been covered by Billboard multiple times (which are already in the article). (Perhaps, with better coverage of Israeli music, we will see that it meets both criteria.) Chubbles (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ fails WP:CORP, fails WP:GNG. I searched google, books and proquest newspapers, and all that I found were the sort of mentions User:Chubbles describes, where a recording is describes as issues by Galilee, and a news article about the hiring of of a new pastor by a local church which mentions that he had worked for this church. Most hits on this phrase are about other stuff entirely (a proposed Christian theme part; a theological concept...) There is no doubt that this Christian record label exists, but no evidence that it is a notable label. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't believe it passes WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not with three pieces in Billboard - the top American publication for record label info - and a further article from a major Christian magazine, as is currently in the article? Chubbles (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Billboard coverage is independent of the label, demonstrating notability.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has independent reliable sources coverage such as multiple articles in Billboard and Cross Rythms (a Christian music reliable source) so passes WP:GNG thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
tepid keep. My searches find only mentions in the context of albums released, and an album reviewed. I have added some to the page. No in depth coverage, but I suppose that an argument can be made that a small record label is like a small publisher, notable because it is useful to know who produced a work of musical merit. And the fact that albums produced are reviewed in WP:RS publications supports notability of publisher.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2019 (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.