Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hip 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 16:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hip Records

[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)

Non notable minor record label that is now defunct. Tagged since 2009.

PROD removed due to "I found sources (not surprising given it is Stax-related)", but none were actually added.

Also, the notability tag was not removed, so let's decide once and for all if this is notable. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep I have added a host of refs, though not two SIGCOVs which would be needed for N:Corp, still think they are an interesting off shoot. There maybe more paper refs as many music chat rooms seem to find them an interesting label. If not kept would recommend merging into Stax Records.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I de-prodded the article) Although I hold GNG/NMUSIC #5 is the most appropriate guideline we have for historical record labels (as producers of art, as opposed to ongoing concerns which are prone to spam) significant coverage in Billboard, 26 Nov 1966, page 3 (already in article), as well as Soulsville, U.S.A.: The Story of Stax Records By Rob Bowman · 2011" not currently in article, and Respect Yourself: Stax Records and the Soul Explosion by Robert Gordon (barely used in article). Unfortunately most of what I need is hidden and in COVID times I don't have access to a library which probably holds these titles, but the index and previews demonstrate coverage of Hip Records equate to more than passing mentions. Discogs as a source needs to be removed, it is used as SYNTH, and isn't reliable anyway. The Billboard June 29, 1968 article, though useful, is not significant coverage on Hip. The Scram magazine is also not significant coverage. The Mansfield book begins to approach significant coverage, but it isn't there. I can't find the Rock Candy Magazine copy, so I am unable to judge whether the coverage is significant. My only result in newspapers.com is The Rock Island Argus (Rock Island, Illinois) 25 Oct 1969, a casual mention again. [1] provides no significant coverage. Global Dog Productions, a discography with editorial oversight, gives a 45rpm discography, which is significant coverage. That what I've been able to find in my search. There are four instances of significant coverage, meeting any definition of Wikipedia notability. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Three book sources and the Billboard source are reliable and independent and show significant coverage, and makes it notable. Offline sources are likely to exist that can also count towards notability. --Ashley yoursmile! 21:40, 9 March 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.