Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Antique Records

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|New Antique Records}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=New Antique Records}})

Completely fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP; I couldn't find any independent sources showing any coverage (let alone significant coverage). The 'releases' by this record label are nothing more than just remixes of songs that you can download off their website. Not one of the more important indie labels, fails WP:NMUSIC.

This article has lasted 10 years but has zero notability. The label doesn't even have a Discogs page, which I didn't even think was possible! Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with nominator's assesment. Lesliechin1 (talk) 08:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Citterz (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete I can't find any independent sources on this, much less any with in-depth information. Non-notable from an arts/culture standpoint, non-notable from a business standpoint, fails GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:07, 15 March 2021 (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.