Deletion of Houndstooth (record label)

Comment: The sources do not satisfy . Articles about releases which mention the record label in brief are not useful per . The awards do not have any secondary citations and are not convincing enough. The http://www.factmag.com/2012/12/19/london-club-fabric-announces-new-label-houndstooth-full-details-and-forthcoming-releases-inside/ FactMag is essentially an interview with the founder which doesn't satisfy . Add to that the fact that the page is being used for promotion and I will go with a delete here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:INHERITORG||WP:ORGIND)

Comment: I was initially skeptical, but started checking the sources referenced and was surprised to find that most have Wikipedia articles (''Resident Advisor'', ''Dazed'', ''Tiny Mix Tapes'', ''XLR8R''), so it appears they're something more than 'random websites'. In particular, ''Resident Advisor'' appears to be a |reliable source and https://www.residentadvisor.net/features/1802 their feature on Houndstooth is certainly significant coverage. A quick google also turned up http://www.factmag.com/2012/12/19/london-club-fabric-announces-new-label-houndstooth-full-details-and-forthcoming-releases-inside/ a substantial article in ''Fact (UK magazine)'' and http://www.npr.org/2016/02/19/467134456/songs-we-love-snow-ghosts-undertow a 9-nine paragraph on npr.org. So it seems to me that the subject meets  as having received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I agree that the 'Discography' section should be deleted per , however
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOTCATALOGUE||WP:reliable source)

Comment: per ; the article exists solely to promote the business. The awards are unconvincing; some are fan based and others are trivial. The subject shows no signs of significance or notability and sources are marginal
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PROMO)