Deletion of Topshelf Records

Comment: Coverage" is not, on its own, enough to meet the criteria for notability. The coverage must also be significant and independent. None of those references meets the criteria for establishing notability. https://pitchfork.com/thepitch/86-your-new-favorite-emo-bands-the-best-of-topshelf-records-2013-sampler/ The Pitchfork reference is a mere mention-in-passing, essentially saying they've had a breakthrough year but providing no other information on the company itself but comments on the success of various artists and albums, fails  and . https://arena.com/article/topshelf-interview The Arena reference is entirely based on an interview with the company and it therefore not independent coverage and fails . The http://www.punktastic.com/interviews/interview-seth-decoteau-topshelf-records-september-2015/ Punktastic reference is also entirely based on an interview, likewise fails . Finally http://sdcitybeat.com/music/notes-from-the-smoking-patio/topshelf-records-moves-san-diego/ the San Diego CityBeat reference is based on an announcement and also fails 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:SIGCOV||WP:ORGIND||WP:ORGIND||WP:ORGIND)

Comment: The first is based almost entirely on quotations and information provided at an interview, fails . The second is a mention-in-passing, fails . The third ... I think this one is weak but does enough to meet the criteria for establishing notability. A topic needs two references though. I'll change my !vote to draftify based on this reference and Britishfinance comments below
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGIND||WP:CORPDEPTH)