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 redirect to MapleCore Ltd.. TonyBallioni ( talk) 21:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Pheromone Recordings

Pheromone Recordings (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Per source searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Could be redirected to MapleCore Ltd. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to MapleCore. Full disclosure, I'm the original creator here, but I did so at a very different time in the history of Wikipedia's notability and sourcing standards. At the time, all a record label had to do to be considered notable per WP:NMUSIC was to have notable artists on it — and WP:CORPDEPTH wasn't a thing yet either, but rather it was enough to be able to reference it to RS coverage of the artists which verified that those artists were on it. But we're stricter now about the distinction between coverage which mentions the topic and coverage which is actually about the topic, and this isn't salvageable to the latter sort of coverage. But even without the depth of coverage needed to qualify for a standalone article, it is verifiable enough to merit mention in Wikipedia somewhere — and its parent corporation's article is better-sourced as the subject of more coverage about it than this division is. Bearcat ( talk) 15:09, 25 October 2017 (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.