Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skam 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. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 03:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Skam Records

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Came her after nominating Quinoline Yellow (musician) for deletion based on not meeting notability guidelines. The record label fails as well. Very limited sources online and nothing in-depth to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. CNMall41 (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. These were easily found:, , . I'm sure there's more out there. --Michig (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Thanks for the links. The CMJ is not in-depth and don't see them as reliable, the "Rough Guide to Rock" only mentions them with a group and does nothing for notability, the last CMJ article talks about them related to the electronic movement and is not close to in-depth. Of course, that's just my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment - Well, I'll say this label was pretty important in the 90s electronic music scene (esp in England). Boards of Canada, Gescom (the founder), Autechre, Jega, etc. all had releases through it. That said, there are two challenges: first, it was the early days of the web (and pre-web) so sources are harder to find, and second, I don't think there was ever a ton of information about the label to begin with, owing to a very much underground ethos/aesthetic. I don't have time to do a good search for sources (i.e. the harder to find ones that haven't survived on the accessible web), but as yet I haven't found enough to justify keeping, unfortunately. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 16:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Simply nothing convincing with what is needed to keep and improve this article. SwisterTwister   talk  04:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 22:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's a tough one and I'm a bit torn here: Rhododendrites admits "I don't think there was ever a ton of information about the label to begin with" which highlights the problem in getting this to pass notability. Even if we went back to paper issues of NME and the like (and I could do that, they're in the British Library), I still think we'd struggle to find anything much more on this record label than what Michig has already uncovered. Boards of Canada and Autechre are certainly key figures in the UK electronic scene of the 1990s but their main work was released on Warp Records, so interviews and articles about these artists are also unlikely to mention Skam, and if they do, it's likely to be one sentence along the lines of "their first single was released on Manchester-based Skam Records". Richard3120 (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.