- 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. RL0919 ( talk) 02:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Puerto Roc Records
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Puerto Roc Records ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Stub sourced solely to the websites of the label itself and its apparently sole recording artist. no sources added since creation. WP:BEFORE discloses only passing mentions (e.g., [1]). No significant coverage in independent sources so fails WP:GNG and no applicable SNG appears satisfied. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - there's a little more than I thought there'd be, [2], [3], but it's not enough. The first is a passing mention, although it shows they had more than one artist, and the second is another passing mention that isn't even independent. There's nothing to show the label had any material effect on multiple notable artists' careers, that it had any material effect on any genre or regional culture, or any impact on the history of the recording industry. There's no indication that it meets WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. There's nothing to save, it is written as an advertisement that just looks embarrassingly outdated. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 14:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)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.
- 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. RL0919 ( talk) 02:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Puerto Roc Records
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Puerto Roc Records ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Stub sourced solely to the websites of the label itself and its apparently sole recording artist. no sources added since creation. WP:BEFORE discloses only passing mentions (e.g., [1]). No significant coverage in independent sources so fails WP:GNG and no applicable SNG appears satisfied. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - there's a little more than I thought there'd be, [2], [3], but it's not enough. The first is a passing mention, although it shows they had more than one artist, and the second is another passing mention that isn't even independent. There's nothing to show the label had any material effect on multiple notable artists' careers, that it had any material effect on any genre or regional culture, or any impact on the history of the recording industry. There's no indication that it meets WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. There's nothing to save, it is written as an advertisement that just looks embarrassingly outdated. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 14:25, 13 December 2019 (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.