Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bit Riot Records
Record labels coming up for deletion are difficult to defend, because they aren't usually "sexy" unless talking about truly legendary labels such as Motown, Sun, or Gennett.  The artists get all the press and credit, but those who study the industry know how important record labels have been (and continue to be, though to a lesser extent) on musical culture and development.  A record company will properly divert attention to the product, and not to itself, therefore the GNG can be difficult to meet even for a successful independent.   isn't really a good fit for record labels, because they are in the business of producing and promoting "art", not a typical consumer good.  The best case for keeping a record label such as this is found in .  An artist is considered inherently notable if they have signed to "a label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of many notable musicians."  Therefore it stands to reason that a label that has many notable artists signed to it is inherently notable.  I've been borrowing from him, but I'm going to quote {{ping|Chubbles}} directly here because he put it better than I can:  {{quote|This is not circular and does not violate WP:NOTINHERITED, as is often claimed; the notability of the artist is not based upon whether or not the label has an article, although this is sometimes used as a lazy shorthand. There are many labels without articles that fit these criteria. Much as we do with artists who are members of more than one clearly notable band but who are not themselves the subject of extensive news coverage, I think it is sensible to do the same with labels
— NONE, NONE
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:CORP||WP:MUSIC (Wikipedia:Notability)