Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-Parlo

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) 19:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Parlo

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

not notable. A Guy into Books (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, concur with nom, non-notable record label. Stikkyy t/c 18:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Aguyintobooks remember to always include a thoughtful rationale. I whole-heartedly agree: there is no secondary coverage whatsoever; however, an inclusionist may vote keep just because of the lack of a policy-based rationale.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course, it fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH proably applies, it fails that too. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 07:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I had to muse on this one. Indie record labels are difficult to suss the notability of sometimes, and Post-Parlo produced Home Volume IV, and Home Volume IV, which are notable albums. The bands they had signed to them are not particularly notable with the Western Keys, The Fall on Deaf Ears, and Actionslacks producing at most one album with the band (and largely being non-notable). menaechmi (talk) 14:35, 13 September 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.