Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carrot Top 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Carrot Top Records
- Carrot Top 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)
Contested prod. For the current references in the article as of nomination, the first three are self-published sources, the fourth is a blog, and the fifth does not even mention, let alone cover in any depth, the article subject. I've searched for better references, and expected it to at least be possible to find some, but have come up entirely empty. Accordingly, I believe that we
do not have any reference material to sustain this article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
]
- Note: This debate has been included in the (talk) 03:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)]
- Note: This debate has been included in the (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)]
- Note: This debate has been included in the (talk) 03:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)]
- Comment. Clearly a significant label with a roster of notable artists. There are sources out there, e.g. [1], [2], and several other briefer mentions. Not in-depth coverage by any means, but I think it's a shame if a significant-enough label can't be covered here (satisfying ]
- Keep based on the roster of notable artists. Unless someone can point me to a notability guideline for record labels that says otherwise, I will assume that having several notable artists on a label makes a label notable.--WP:WAWARD) 19:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)]
- Comment (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)]
- WP:WAWARD) 12:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)]
- WP:WAWARD) 14:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)]
- Yes, sorry, I've been busy lately. I think this article should be kept and therefore vote keep. (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)]
- Yes, sorry, I've been busy lately. I think this article should be kept and therefore vote keep.
- Comment
- 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.