Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skam Records (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. I'm not sure if the keep arguments are strong enough to support a clear "keep" closure, but there's certainly no support for deletion. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skam Records[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)

Per WP:BEFORE searches, this is a non-notable record label that does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added a basic reference from an article in The Wire 176. Issue 167 of the same magazine has a review of two of their compilations, around 1/4 page in length. The same publication has various passing mentions over the years, and maybe a more substantial review in July 2018, but I don't have that issue to hand. Not enough for notability on their own, but support if other sources can be located. AllyD (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Coverage also from CMJ New Music Monthly - [1], [2]. The label is sufficiently significant for inclusion I think. --Michig (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is consideration of additional sourcing, with at least an indication of a keep by one participant. Certainly there seem sufficient grounds for further discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 12:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - decent writeup about the company in CMJ, the second by CMJ is useful, but probably not in-depth enough to help establish notability. Combined with Wire writeup, this seems to barely pass GNG. According to CMJ the label has had a noticeable cultural impact within its genre. It has been around awhile (more than 25 years, significant for a record label) and has a roster of notable artists, so meets inverse-logic of NMUSIC#5. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:29, 24 October 2018 (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.