Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eye of the Storm Records

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Eye of the Storm Records}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eye_of_the_Storm_Records Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Eye of the Storm Records}})

No significant coverage. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 03:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 03:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 09:01, 02 July 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Biggest claim to fame appears to have been being sued by Converse, which unsurprisingly doesn't get a mention in this promo article. Triptothecottage (talk) 07:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:NCORP by a mile. --Dom from Paris (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Article completely lacks third-party sources.TH1980 (talk) 05:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• This does not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. Triptothecottage (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - A search for reliable, independent sources turned up nothing. Fails of GNG. No notable releases, no notable artists signed, therefore I can't think of any other criteria which would indicate the topic merits inclusion here. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.