Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Provenance 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 delete. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Provenance Records[edit]

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

Non-notable record company lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I frankly consider this speedy material, both PR-hinting and also contains nothing for independent substance. SwisterTwister talk 22:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a non notable record label: no indications of notability nor sufficient coverage to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON - their artists get decent coverage, but I can't find anything substantial on the label itself as yet - David Gerard (talk) 09:56, 25 August 2016 (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.