Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hooked Up Records

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hooked Up Records

[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)

Topic fails WP:NMUSIC as it is quite clearly not one of the more important indie record labels given that it was short-lived and had zero notable releases. As a for-profit company, topic also fails WP:NCORP with zero sources meeting WP:CORPDEPTH requirements. The WA Woman source is a passing mention.

Google News had zero hits. Google Books had no relevant hits. ProQuest hits are also irrelevant. Newspaper Archive (1995 - 2015) search yields no relevant hits either.

No worthwhile content worth merging into College Fall or Anna Laverty. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, England, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it's not true that the label had zero notable releases (the College Fall one passes muster), it's the only full-length album the label ever released, and according to Discogs, the label only ever put out 8 releases, half of which were CD-R singles. That's not going to make it past WP:MUSIC's sense of an important indie label (the CORPDEPTH discussion is beside the point, as the label wouldn't need to be held to that standard to be worth keeping, but that's ultimately orthogonal when the label has such a clear lack of relevance). Chubbles (talk) 07:02, 31 August 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.