Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aardvark 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. WP:SIGCOV threshold not surpassed especially with primary sources and user submitted content websites like Last.fm being used as sources to support the keep camp arguments. Mkdw ^talk 03:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aardvark Records

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

Does not meet notability guidelines. I declined speedy deletion, as this is an older article with a number of editors. Gaining consensus here will help solidify decision. Jujutacular (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

care must be taken not to confuse it with record stores of the same name in the United States. According to Google News, there are or were more than one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 01:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:CORP. Article written by a WP:SPA, Phil Hiett, who is a DJ/producer and one of Aardvark Records former artists. Richard3120 (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- advertorial with too many red links. Perhaps created as a "map" to expand the walled garden? Nothing suggests notability here. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

K.e.coffman – if you follow the five blue links they all link to completely unrelated articles that have nothing to do with the artists, so in fact the entire artist list is non-notable. Richard3120 (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the page is acceptable. It seems factual and neutral in tone to me. Aardvark is mentioned in Issue 4 of the Association of Independent Music Journal, first published in July 2008. http://www.musicindie.com/news/1164. It is mentioned by Eurogamer.net with respect to its supply of music for the entertainment product "Eurosurf" again in 2008. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/aardvark-records-supplying-songs-to-audiosurf. The page on last.fm http://www.last.fm/label/Aardvark+Records says Aardvark Records is part of Aardvark Music Ltd. Companies House records show that Ardvaark Music Ltd (Company No. 04227106) was incorporated in 2001 and dissolved in 2014; the website http://aardvarkrecords.co.uk/ has the year 2015 on it and appears to be actively trading. There is no company called Aardvark Records Ltd in Companies House but that in itself does not have to be a problem, in my opinion. A name with proven 15 years history and the subject of two independently published articles seems reasonable to me. In the two articles, the subject was the focus of the article and not a passing mention. I am happy to accept Musicindie and Eurogamer as reputable sources. In particular the AIM reference is not trivial, it goes on for some length and AIM seems to be well respected trade organisation with 800 company members covering UK and EU. http://www.musicindie.com/membership. I agree the article is the product of a single purpose account but the author has done a commendable job of observing the spirit of Wikipedia and so I think it should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philjones573 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: AIM is a reputable organisation, but as the article for it was written by Aardvark's marketing and promotions manager, it hardly counts as an independent source. Richard3120 (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Fair enough but as a burnt new contributor to Wikipedia I found the forcible demand for "independent sources" bewildering. I thought offering factual information in a neutral tone in good faith was welcome. To say I have been on the receiving end of "biting the newcomers" is an understatement. I have written to the author to let him know what is wanted is his press cuttings. He is bound to have some. I think the article has problems but I think they are fixable and I am going to help him. I ask for the author to be given time to collect the information requested.

Philjones573 (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(refactored) Hello. My name is Andy Reeve and owner of Aardvark Records.co uk. Indeed I did close the Limited company after a disaster which involved a key staff member departing bu I won't go into any more detail here. I was encouraged by some of my artists to start up again but this time as a Sole trader and did so with ful compliance with English Law. If you care to check with the HMRC you will find that I have already made my first tax return to them. All other legal requirements have been taken care of. So it is Business as usual. The key here is that there is no conflict with the American Record shops because of the .co.uk in our website address. There is an American Record company in the USA and we have quite happily ignored each other since 2001. So we exist. We are trading successfully so can we end this discussion now please. Andy Reeve — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.108.182 (talk) 09:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2016 (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.