Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glitch Mode Recordings

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 Cyanotic (band). Per WP:ATD. A sole !vote for keeping seems to be verging on WP:OSE, while redirecting was suggested by multiple nominators. Further, rejecting redirection because the page is promotional smacks of using AfD for cleaning-up purposes. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving pings. Bizarre.} 12:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glitch Mode Recordings[edit]

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

Little evidence of notability according to WP:NCORP also, artists on the record label seem to not meet notability guidelines per WP:MUSIC. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel that this article should be kept until the artists that they promote are proven to lack notability. Champion seems to throw around the claim that the artists are not notable, but their pages remain on WP.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure this is independent from Cyanotic (band) in any real way. The only independent coverage I can find is akin to [1], which doesn't suggest that it meets WP:GNG, I'm unsure if there's a music-specific guideline here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(reply to Power) There is verbiage at WP:MUSIC, bullet 5, about the importance of labels; at WT:MUSIC there is an ongoing discussion about a possible notability guideline for labels, since WP:CORP is a really poor fit for determining a label's noteworthiness. As for this label in particular, this seems like a good candidate to Merge into Cyanotic (band), since they run the label and there isn't a whole lot to justify a separate article here. Chubbles (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Labels do not inherit notability from their artists. If the label itself doesn't have significant coverage, then we lack the secondary sourcing with which to write a separate article that does justice to the topic. Cyanotic started the label, according to our poorly-sourced article, and there is no sourced content to merge. Redirect to Cyanotic (band). czar 12:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic fails GNG and there are no indications of notability. I disagree with a redirect because G11 - this is really a self-promotional page - there aren't even any worthwhile references and because this is really an obscure topic that doesn't require a redirect. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cyanotic (band). Plausible search term. PhilKnight (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2017 (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.