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 No consensus (non-admin closure); notability remains contentious. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PIAS Entertainment Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

• Delete non notable company Mayalld (talk) 11:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Company has only 70 GHITS, most of which appear to be directories, incidental mentions, or blogs Mayalld (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't know how you see Ghits but the site pias.com has 1500 websites linking to it (according to a link: pias.com Google search) It’s maybe not a huge public brand compared to other commercial sectors; record companies logos only appear on the back of the CDs and common people might not bother about it. But music lovers do and it's still the main European independent record company and, to my knowledge, (and according to the universal website[1]) the only European independent distribution network. Having articles about the majors but refusing to publish information about an independent is not a good move I think. siouxsy (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment GHITS means how many hits you get on google, EXCLUDING hits on Wikipedia, sites associated with the company, myspace, directory sites, blogs etc. Mayalld (talk) 10:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Do you have ANY knowledge of independent record companies, other than the "GHITS" that showed up in your search? NEver yer PAL (talk) 12:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You have yet to impart any of your own knowledge in this discussion. PC78 (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep notable company NEver yer PAL (talk) 12:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• For crying out loud. Can the pair of you please demonstrate (i.e., by providing some sort of evidence) how this subject is either notable or not notable. PC78 (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment One cannot prove a negative. I can only offer my regrets that my stalker appears to have arrived at this AfD Mayalld (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course you can (and should); how does the article fail relevant notability guidelines? Have you searched for sources? What were your findings? The onus is really on you to demonstrate how the subject is not notable, and why the article should be deleted. PC78 (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Info on GHITS added Mayalld (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge with Play It Again Sam (record label), or merge and redirect that label here. A highly notable company, easily meets the "heard of it before seeing the Wikipedia article" test. My favorite PIAS record is Il Canto di Malavita, a collection of folk music by organized criminals in Calabria. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep PIAS is the biggest independent record company representing artists as: Soulwax, Morcheeba, Editors, Mogwai , Sigur Ros, Reverend and the Makers,Miossec, Grace Jones, Infadels, Futureheads…. And much more.

I created this page as the Play It Again Sam (record label) page was making confusion mixing information about the group (distributor) and the label (I still have to clean the label page) . - siouxsy 16:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete notability not asserted Toddst1 (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete for non-notability. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per siouxsy 16 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.87.17.46 (talk) 07:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non notable. Schmidt (talk) 05:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds if not thousands of fine record companies with similar or better track records. Publishing music by notable artists does not confer notabilty upon the company, as notabilty is not inherited.[2] What major awards has it won? What scholasrships has it established? What trends has it established? What makes it so particiularly special? Schmidt (talk) 06:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think you are mixing subjects, we are not talking about a record labels but about an international distribution group, I don’t think that there are hundred of them. To my knowledge, PIAS is the only European independent network.siouxsy (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: Okay... I have struck my numbers because I do not know how many other companies compete in their market. However, my vote stands, as notability is still not inherited. You have a few external links, but you've left the article unsourced. Notability has not been established. Your best bet is to go through the article line by line and see if you can cite the statements. Simply offering EL's does not do it. If this were RCA Records or Sony Music Entertainment there'd be little question of notability. Show how PIAS is notable as their smaller cousin. And trust me... using their official sites [3][4] does not do it, as they are primary sources and can not be expected to be neutral about themselves. The Wall of Sound and FCom link do not show notablilty. I am not going to do your job for you.... but I just did a google search. I have no idea of the value of these links, but you may wish to find ways to use these secondary sources to improve the article: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. They ball is in your court (and just adding them as external links does not show their value as sources or prove notability for PIAS EG). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:32, 12 August 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.