Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duplex Records (2nd nomination)

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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duplex Records[edit]

[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)

This article has a complex history. It was AfD'ed in 2008 here and duly deleted. Then it was re-created using the Content Translation Tool, within the time frame that would make it subject to CSD X2, but owing to slow progress through the X2 backlog, not checked for a couple of years (until I got to it just now). In the meantime it has been prodded, but the prod was declined by one of our wise sysops on the basis that there has been a historic AfD. Nobody ever seems to have got round to adding any independent third party sources and I wasn't able to find one I thought was acceptable either. —S Marshall T/C 22:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 03:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 03:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - When an article is recreated, it's necessary to demonstrate the issues from the first AfD have been addressed. They have not been addressed here, and in fact we just have an unsourced company page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NORG for the lack of reliable secondary multiple WP:SIGCOV, could have been even G4ed speedy deleted as the article doesn't address the reason it was deleted in the first AfD. This seems like the only possibly decent source [1], but certainly not enough. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:42, 14 October 2019 (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.