Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subversive Records
Appearance
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 delete. Courcelles 05:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Subversive Records (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)
Clearly a record label as they are listed on some records, but that is the only mention I can find. Being listed as the record label to an album without any independent coverage or significant coverage does not qualify for an article based on WP:GNG. If someone can find WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources which would show notability, I will gladly withdraw the nomination. FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - couldn't find anything that we would consider significant coverage in a reliable source, let alone the multiple anythings required by WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Stalwart111 03:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Couldn't find anything myself. A previous company seems to have existed in the 1980's at seen at this Google Link.[1] So that other company aside, not even a trivial mention showed up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2013 (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.