Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paper and Glue
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Temposhark#Early_EPs_and_Collaborations_.282004-2007.29. Both Robert Diament and Temposhark are plausible redirect targets as they both mention the label the same amount but I've chosen Temposhark as it seems more relevant. My searches at Google News and Books provided nothing and this isn't surprising as the label was only used for the band's music. (non-admin closure) SwisterTwister talk 02:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Paper and Glue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A record label that fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Google News archives and Books searches yield no coverage in reliable sources. Customized searches such as [1] and [2] are also yielding no results. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Don't you think that consideration of merging to Temposhark or Robert Diament would have been appropriate before bringing this to AfD per WP:BEFORE? You're creating a lot of work for other editors with all these AfD nominations. --Michig (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 06:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 06:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 14:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG MERGE This article should not be up for AfD. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:06, 24 November 2012 (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.