Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Records (Norway)

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. Wizardman 17:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Records (Norway)[edit]

[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)

Tiny record label which fails WP:NCORP. Geschichte (talk) 11:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Norway. Owen× ☎ 12:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this record label didn't last long, but it certainly did field a roster of noteworthy artists, some of which charted substantially in Norway. Can we get someone who has facility with Norwegian to look for in-language literature? My instinct is to default to a weak keep here as the label seems close to meeting WP:MUSIC's sense of one of the more important indies. Chubbles (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; WP:MUSIC is not a guideline for labels Geschichte (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't see why we would reject subject-specific material in a guideline, and it certainly makes more sense for music experts to be assessing label notability than corporation experts. I actually proposed a set of guidelines at WP:MUSIC for labels a few years back; I should probably resurrect that conversation. Chubbles (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's something you ought to address in relevant talk pages or Village Pump. Graywalls (talk) 08:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP without significant coverage in multiple, completely independent, reliable sources of broad audience interest. I agree with ~~OwenX~~ Geschichte that NMUSIC is not applicable here simply because the institution/organization/company is of music related field. Graywalls (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I merely added the discussion to a few deletion sorting lists. I don't have strong feelings about the article either way. Owen× ☎ 14:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I attributed to wrong user. Disregard. Graywalls (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Happy to share that I found one good source. That's not enough for a keep. It should also be noted that article is extremely short. Leaning delete for now. If someone finds another good source, ping me. gidonb (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Now that we have one good source, I checked options for merger. There is an American group this is somewhat affiliated with, known as Beyond Collective or as Beyond the Music. We have Beyond Music and that is something else. As is the UK music label. Without a merge target this should default to delete. gidonb (talk) 01:06, 2 February 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.