Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paper Garden 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. The consensus is that there is insufficient reliable, independent sourcing which could show that this record label meets the notability criteria at this time.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 16:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Paper Garden Records

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had nothing but passing mentions in my music reliable sources custom Google search. I see no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 23:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  czar  23:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Zero references or sources provided. The handful of notable associated acts that are linked to the page seem to have gained their notability regardless of an association with Paper Garden Records. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a note in light of the article's recent cleanup that primary and unreliable sources aren't going to help at AfD, so it might be better to discuss the potential of the sources here before spending the time integrating them into the article. czar  06:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Upon my recent research in the last day, I have found that the label has a current and growing integral position in the independent music scene. The diverse label signs American artists, such as New York band ARMS, and foreign artists, such as Danish band Alcoholic Faith Mission from Copenhagen. The label's growing popularity is underscored by its recent signing to Sub Pop Licensing, opening its music to be licensed in countless famed films and television shows. Or its recent signing of the illustrious British folk singer David Thomas Broughton. Or its weekly and annual concerts and events, such as its annual distinguished residency at SXSW. I, a music fan and frequent and impartial Wikipedia editor, hope to establish the label's notable place in independent music not only in New York but across the country and around the globe in indie music. Thanks! MetropolisHearts (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As preempted above, Wikipedia doesn't establish notability for the topic—that's the job of reliable, secondary sources. The new sources are either primary (not independent, such as a press release), unreliable (blogs without fact-checking reputations), or passing mentions (not about the label, but mentioning the label incidentally). As it stands, there isn't enough sourcing for an article. czar  05:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I will have to respectfully disagree on a comparative basis across Wikipedia, regarding notability. MetropolisHearts (talk) 06:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Each article is addressed on its own merits—the adage here is "other stuff exists". If you have other things to nominate for deletion, go for it, but we don't keep articles just because we haven't addressed others. czar  16:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your selective interest in content quality is inane. If you wanted to actually show interest then why not check out Category:Record label stubs? MetropolisHearts (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No need for the tone. Record label stubs are no more special than any other collection of stubs—we do one article at a time, each on its own merits. You're welcome to work on those stubs if you feel so inclined. czar  18:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Move to Draft at best as the currently listed sources are noticeable but this article is still questionable for any better obvious notability and improvements. No serious needs for complete deletion, simply move to Draft and away from mainspace temporarily, SwisterTwister   talk  05:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 03:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I found this article in Creative Loafing, but it's more about an event than the record label.  There were also a few more trivial mentions scattered about, such as this article in The New York Times.  However, it's still a bit too soon for an article, as these are not in-depth coverage of the record label.  I guess sending it to draft space would be OK, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of verifiable sources meaning notability has not been established. The artists listed are indicative that this topic MIGHT be notable but on their own they are a clue, not a conclusion.  The philosophy of Wikipedia regarding sources is, roughly, "If a topic really is notable then there shouldn't be any trouble finding secondary sources to demonstrate it."  The lack of such sources here means that this article does not pass Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion at this time.  If such sources can be found in the future, this article can be recreated then, with no prejudice to the article creators.-Markeer 23:48, 18 April 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.