Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auralux Recordings

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. Randykitty (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Auralux Recordings

[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)

Inadequate sourcing to support NCORP. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable as a record label - reissues only, so roster of notable artists is irrelevant. Fails WP:NMUSIC#5. The label itself has not gained any attention of substance, and therefore not notable per NCORP and GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NCORP. As 78.26 notes above, all releases on this label are reissues of records that were previously on other labels, or compilations. None of these releases were hits, and the label has not received coverage in significant sources. Richard3120 (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2019 (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.