Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planet Rack 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Rack Records

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

A very recently established record label. No notable artists (the ones with articles seem to be already up for deletion in one form or another), and searching for non-self-published sources drew a complete blank. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CORPDEPTH guidelines and this article fails our main policy for inclusion What Wikipedia is not on several levels Article and sources fail to establish notability - 4 of the sources are self-published, the other 2 are listings of corporate filing in New York. Article was created by founder of the company. As nom said searches provide no sources that meet criteria necessary to establish notability. CBS527^Talk 20:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSPAM; appears to be part of a walled garden being built by Special:Contributions/TheMartian360. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON to establish any notability for either the label or its artists and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Pure self-promotion. Richard3120 (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 9 July 2017 (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.