Deletion of Hefty Records

Comment: Since this debate started, the separate article on the label's founder has been merged into this label article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Hughes III). I contend that the above discussion on whether an interview with the founder constitutes coverage of the label is a bit of a red herring. The label got noticed because its founder has a famous relative, and that founder has done little else beyond running the label. Therefore the two topics pretty much go hand-in-hand, and even more-so now that the founder's article has been merged into this one. This label probably would not be independently notable per Wikipedia:NCOMPANY if the founder wasn't semi-famous, but it got a few pieces of |reliable coverage anyway. It's not much but enough for a basic stub article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: The requirements for references that meet the criteria for establishing notability is a lot different than the criteria for supporting facts within an article. So, while https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/16/style/a-night-out-with-john-hughes-iii-the-whole-menagerie.html this NYT reference can be used in a latter capacity, it fails the former because it is not "intellectually independent" and fails . ''Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.'' This is also the same reason that https://www.xlr8r.com/features/hefty-records-looking-to-the-future the xlr8r reference and the http://chicagoist.com/2006/05/22/the_interview_john_hughes_iii_hefty_records.php chicagoist reference also fail the criteria for establishing notability. Also, notability is |not inherited. Without references, topic fails GNG and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGIND||WP:NOTINHERIT||WP:NCORP)

Comment: Hi {{u|Chubbles}}, you've added two additional references but neither meets the requirements for establishing notability. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-05-02/features/0405020393_1_labels-record-sales-electronic-music This one from the Chicago Tribune is an interview with the founder and since it is not intellectually independent, it fails  since it does not contain any original/independent opinion/analysis that is not attributable to Hughes. It also fails  as it contains no information about the company. The other reference http://www.stopsmilingonline.com/story_detail.php?id=677 from StopSmiling is labelled clearly as an "oral history" from Hughes and fails for the same reasons. ORGIND defines "intellectual independence" and it goes on to state: ''Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGIND||WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: The NYT article does not support GNG here because Hefty is not the subject and is just mentioned in passing. The XLR8R source in not a clearcut 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: But .. but .. but ... hang on {{u|Doomsdayer520}}, stating ''This label probably would not be independently notable per Wikipedia:NCOMPANY if the founder wasn't semi-famous'' is an admission that the company is not notable in its own right and since |notability is not inherited, the semi-famous founder's purported notability doesn't enter into consideration. And getting a few pieces of WS:RS|reliable coverage also isn't the full criteria for establishing notability since the "coverage" must also meet the criteria in SIGCOV *and* ORGIND *and* CORPDEPTH. Can you take another look and perhaps revisit your !vote based on the above
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERIT)