Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilhelm 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 delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Wilhelm Records

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication that this is a notable business per WP:CORP or any other. Notability is not inherited from represented/recorded artists. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as a non-notable label. While it is true that notability is not inherited, it is important to note the characteristics that make a record label notable, which is namely the material the label releases.  Having multiple notable artists is a strong indication of notability for a record label, which is different than inheriting notability.  That said, this label does not have multiple notable artists, does not seem to have impacted musical culture in any way by genre impact or length of history.  Therefore this is a non-notable label.  The references are either all casual mentions, or PR pieces.  In particular the USA Today piece is an advertisement, not a newspaper article, pay attention to the email address of the "article" author.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 13:21, 8 August 2017 (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.