Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gwarn Music

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. Daniel (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gwarn Music

Gwarn Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is long, long overdue. Unsourced for 16 years and my

This surely, surely does not meet 2021 Wikipedia notability standards for a company. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources that would show this record label meets the notability standard. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails
  WP:NCORP. The nominator is correct... this label is about as non-notable as it gets. Basically a vanity label set up by Tony Henry to release music by his new band, and it appears the label only released two singles by the band, both of which disappeared without trace, before Gwarn was absorbed into another label. The editor who created this article appears to have been an IP and SPA who only edited articles related to Tony Henry, which makes me think it may well have been Mr. Henry himself. Richard3120 (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Of highly marginal interest, from a time when such articles were being created with virtually no oversight. (I created some myself, so I know of which I speak.) RobinCarmody (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Richard3120. When even the discogs page is bare, which contains almost everything on bands/labels (even though it is unreliable), you know you are "super unnotable". GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet
  WP:GNG.Expertwikiguy (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2021 (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.