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. Missvain (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mint 400 Records discography[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Mint 400 Records discography: The problems with this article include notability, NPOV|neutraility, and verifiability. First, this is a discography for a record label. As such, it only passes notability if the record label passes musical notability or general notability. There is nothing in this article to that effect. The article does not speak for itself. The record label does not have a company article. Draft:Mint 400 Records has been submitted and declined and then rejected. Creation of this discography for a non-notable label is gaming the system.

Second, the article has had a long history of paid editing, being created by NorthPark1417, who is blocked for conflict of interest. The article has not yet been cleaned of promotional material. It also contains language intended to praise the subject rather than describe them neutrally.

Third, as to verifiability, the first seven references are unresolvable. References 8 through 10 are passing mentions, and reference 11 appears to be a passing mention, but is paywalled. However, the sources would only matter if they supported a claim of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the carefully reasoned nomination above. I was one of several editors to review the Draf tarticle for the company and decline it for many of the same reasons as outlined above. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- In addition to the great reasons given by the nominator, WP:NOTCATALOG also applies.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I forgot to include this analysis of the sources.

		Comments	Independent	Significant
1	Unresolvable
2	Unresolvable
3	Unresolvable
4	Unresolvable
5	Unresolvable
6	Unresolvable
7	Unresolvable
8	The Aquarian. An online newsletter	About a band rather than the label.	Probably.	No. Passing mention.
9	The Aquarian. An online newsletter.	About a band rather than the label.	Probably.	No. Passing mention.
10	Nerdsandbeyond. An online newsletter.	Didn’t find mention of the label.	Probably.	Obviously not.
11	NJ.com.	Paywalled.	Yes.	Doesn’t seem to be.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What you are writing about user:NorthPark1417 is untrue, he clearly said in one of the past talk pages that got deleted who he was and he was not related to the source or the material. And user:Robert McClenon who is clearly not knowledgable on the subject just rejected it yesterday and has not read the wiki guidelines for record label notability of which this is by all standards a notable label. They have bands on the Billboard charts, bands on the NACC charts, bands with members who are in major label bands, past mentions of their artists in notable press outlets like Alternative Press, Brooklyn Vegan, Paste, etc. and they have close to 400 records available through Sony Distribution of which I added the correct link to Label.FM's up to date discography. Secondly The Aquarian and NJ.com (Part of the Star Ledger and Jersey Journal) are major New Jersey musical press outlets, in fact there aren't bigger outlets in NJ that cover music. (User talk:Yourepartofit)

I'm not super knowledgeable on what admins are allowed to do but how can you decide to not let them edit the company article anymore? It was live at some point along with the discography, and it was marked by the WikiProjects for Record Labels as at the "Start" and needed to be worked on. Is there some reason you are not allowing the main company article to not be worked on anymore? It would seem this is a catch 22 if you don't allow the main company article to be submitted anymore. 12:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)168.229.254.25

Delete - The nominator has this right, I concur on every point. Note that discography is very important to me, but in this case, if the label is not notable, the discography of Mint 400 must be covered by in-depth by multiple independent, reliable sources. Othersiwe all you have is advertising for a company's product. Which seems to be an issue with Mint 400.... 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:58, 21 May 2021 (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.