Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slowdance 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. WP:SOFTDELETE, as this has had 2 AFDs now with no one supporting keeping the article. Davewild (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slowdance Records[edit]

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

1st AfD was closed only because no one commented at all. I couldn't verify that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Sending WP:APPNOTE to 78.26 and Wgolf. Boleyn (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - thinking out loud. (Thanks for the ping, Boleyn). I saw this earlier, but was hoping someone with a knowledge of the subject (Portland indie scene) would chime in. Frankly, this seems like a marginally notable label, and I was too lazy to put the work in. Currently there are no independent sources for the article. So before I look for them, does this label appear to have a significant length of operation, and have they signed/released material by multiple notable artists? Currently there are 4 artists with articles of their own. That's a bit slight. The '89 Cubs may or may not be notable, although AllMusic has reviewed them. The Roots of Orchis article has no independent references at all. The Velvet Teen appears notable. Logan Whitehurst is notable, although his association with Slowdance is related to Velvet Teen. So if we count Cubs as half, and Whitehurst as half, that makes 2 notable artists. Fail. The article gives no indication of the length of operation. The label did issue both CDs and Vinyl, so it wasn't just a download label (I'm really biased there.) Going to Google Books there is one source, [1]. Often a mention by Billboard is an indication the label has some cultural impact, but in this case it is indeed the briefest of mentions, perhaps giving more notability to the Cubs (so we're up to 2.5 notable artists). Zip-zero in Google News. There is slight glean-able information found here, and from [2] I can tell they were in operation at least from 2005-2007 (not that significant). Called a "microlabel" here. From here we get that the label was in existence from at least 2001, so we know it was active from at least 2001 - 2007, which is getting somewhere. Everything else is promotional material, facebook/myspace, directory listings, or Wikipedia mirrors. This appears to be an almost-notable label (decent but hardly overwhelming history of releasing material which has caught some national attention), but right now I'm leaning against retaining the article. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 12:10, 3 July 2015 (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.