Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carrot Top 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 keep. (non-admin closure)  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  02:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Carrot Top Records

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested prod. For the current references in the article as of nomination, the first three are self-published sources, the fourth is a blog, and the fifth does not even mention, let alone cover in any depth, the article subject. I've searched for better references, and expected it to at least be possible to find some, but have come up entirely empty. Accordingly, I believe that we do not have any reference material to sustain this article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. Clearly a significant label with a roster of notable artists. There are sources out there, e.g., , and several other briefer mentions. Not in-depth coverage by any means, but I think it's a shame if a significant-enough label can't be covered here (satisfying WP:V) because of a guideline like GNG. --Michig (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the roster of notable artists. Unless someone can point me to a notability guideline for record labels that says otherwise, I will assume that having several notable artists on a label makes a label notable.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, I raised this question on WT:CORP and was directed to WP:NOTINHERITED by , who also said that "just releasing notable records doesn't make the label notable" and that articles about labels do need to meet WP:GNG and WP:CORP to be notable. That said, I added multiple sources to the article already that I think are enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Everymorning (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , Please voice an opinion in this discussion?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , are you aware you are suppose to state support or oppose in bold to make a clear statement.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, I've been busy lately. I think this article should be kept and therefore vote keep. Everymorning (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.