Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Om 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Om 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)

None of the information i've found online supports any notability of the record label itself. It has some large artists signed but notability is not inherited. I'd say this fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 00:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I easily found sources for this label, not surprising given the large number of notable artists that have been signed to this label. Correct, notability is not inherited, but a record label becomes notable by the notable artistic output it releases, and its impact upon culture, and this is best represented by number of notable artists and length of operating history. This topic meets WP:GNG (see article talk page, I found some sources that can be used, but I didn't look very hard), and is a notable record label, GNG aside. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2017 (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.