Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Switchflicker 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Switchflicker Records

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Switchflicker Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

It is a PR article created by the company itself as implied from creator's user name. Since Ting Tings was only a client/artist who at one point in their life was associated to them, it's not an appropriate re-direct target. Therefore, the appropriate remedy to this run of the mill non-notable company is to delete. Graywalls (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, United Kingdom, and England. Graywalls (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Source 1 is not WP:INDEPENDENT of the subject, Sources 2 + 3 barely mention Switchflicker Records, Source 4 is from a WP:USERGENERATED source, and source 6 never even mentions the name "Switchflicker" and instead supports the fact that the Ting Tings signed with Columbia Records. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 23:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Cited materials are directed for Ting ting, not for the subject directly. even though the subject is mentioned, but not indepth.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 19:29, 27 November 2024 (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.