Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eccentric Pop 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. czar ⨹   22:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Eccentric Pop Records

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

In a standard pass through my logs today I discovered this article had been recreated again after having been csd'd twice before while at Eccentric pop records this year on A7 grounds. The article as it appears now is no different than the two previous incarnations deleted, and I would csd it myself were it not for the fact that I rediscovered it, hence the afd. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * NOTE: administratively I would ask that if this is deleted it be long term protected from recreation, as this is getting ridiculous. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - absolutely nada in google news or books. Even regular web search turns up nothing except the facebook page, and a couple of posts on punk websites that barely qualify as press releases.  The articles for notable bands the article claims have signed to the label don't link back to this article.  Does not meet my notability level for labels, (which is lower than most people's), much less CORP or GNG.  The only hope for this one is if some underground print publications can be found.   78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 17:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (witter)  @ 20:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (converse)  @ 20:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 07:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, as the above-mentioned search results don't include any sources that are close to reliable, and the history of this page doesn't help its cause at all. In the best interest of Wikipedia, ~Ngeaup (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:13, 16 January 2015 (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.