Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concept 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concept Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I declined a prod by Another Believer, not because I thought the topic was undoubtedly notable, but because I think it should redirect to Totally Scott-Lee, and I'm not fond of un-discussed "deletion-by-redirect", so here we are. The label does seem to have been associated with a few notable artists, but I can't find any sources with substantial coverage that are independent of the topic. Perhaps this discussion will unearth a few. Also pinging Dcljr who contested the prod.

I believe that Totally Scott-Lee is the correct target as most of the casual mentions I found of this label are in that context. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Oops. That was actually a mistake on my part, because I didn't mean to touch any PRODs that were already removed by others. Anyway, I have no opinion on what should actually happen to the page (as long as it follows our guidelines). - dcljr (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2020 (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.