Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Houndstooth (record label)

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. Sources and awards discussed here do not appear to create notability for the topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Houndstooth (record label)[edit]

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

WP:NOTPROMO, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, no assertion of notability. Releases albums linked to a particular London club, gets "top awards" from random websites, and has nothing else significant. The page is currently also being used as a promotional vehicle by listing their entire catalog of releases. MSJapan (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was initially skeptical, but started checking the sources referenced and was surprised to find that most have Wikipedia articles (Resident Advisor, Dazed, Tiny Mix Tapes, XLR8R), so it appears they're something more than 'random websites'. In particular, Resident Advisor appears to be a reliable source and their feature on Houndstooth is certainly significant coverage. A quick google also turned up a substantial article in Fact (UK magazine) and a 9-nine paragraph on npr.org. So it seems to me that the subject meets WP:GNG as having received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I agree that the 'Discography' section should be deleted per WP:NOTCATALOGUE, however. Qwfp (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recheck your assertions. :) The NPR article is four paragraphs, and only mentions the label because they released the song the article is about. The awards are problematic because they're not established music awards - who's "Juno Plus"? Who's "Dummy magazine"? Coming third in a poll isn't winning. Tiny Mix Tapes is a webzine - do we know it's notable, or is it notable because it has a Wikipedia article? Resident Advisor may be RS, but "Label of the Month" means there were 11 others that year. Music-related items are notable because they win industry awards, not niche things like somebody's Top Ten List or a reader's poll. MSJapan (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asserting that it's notable if it meets WP:GNG. I said nothing about awards, only significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Qwfp (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; the article exists solely to promote the business. The awards are unconvincing; some are fan based and others are trivial. The subject shows no signs of significance or notability and sources are marginal. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources do not satisfy WP:NCORP. Articles about releases which mention the record label in brief are not useful per WP:INHERITORG. The awards do not have any secondary citations and are not convincing enough. The FactMag is essentially an interview with the founder which doesn't satisfy WP:ORGIND. Add to that the fact that the page is being used for promotion and I will go with a delete here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:53, 2 October 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.