Petroleum Records: This article literally just states that the label exists, the end, and sources that existence entirely to a WP:CITEKILL jengastack of directory entries and content on the label's own self-published website -- but as always, simply existing isn't automatically enough in and of itself: an article has to have context for what might make the label significant , and it has to have sources that represent independent attention being paid to the label and its work.  Bearcat ( talk ) 21:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Norway .  Bearcat ( talk ) 21:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This label may be an important Norwegian outlet; among its signees are Thomas Dybdahl , Sondre Justad , Aurora , Kvelertak , Bjorn Eidsvag , and Kaizers Orchestra .  It may be a subsidiary of one of the majors, which would merit a redirect at minimum.  I don't know enough about the Norwegian music scene to really adjudge this, but some digging, particuarly in-language, is warranted before a summary culling is carried out.  Chubbles ( talk ) 00:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What are you trying to accomplish with the above name drop?  Association with notable people don't cause notability to transfer.  For notability to build based on association with notable people, sources independent of the people involved need to establish that as the reason behind notability.  Re-direct is a good idea if there's a single target that is a great fit.  Re-direct can be easily created at any point in the future, so there's no harm in just deleting it.  Graywalls ( talk ) 09:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Record labels exist to promulgate musical artists; they are only worthy of encyclopedic attention insofar as they release music of musicians worthy of encyclopedic attention.  WP:MUSIC , appropriately, reflects this.  This label has released music from a substantial number of musicians worthy of encyclopedic attention, and so, at minimum, the article serves as a nexus for linking the related artists to each other (though the article can also do more; this is only one of its functions, but perhaps the most important one).  Chubbles ( talk ) 07:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - having trouble finding anything substantive in English sources, but according to Billboard, the label had the #1 record in Norway at least twice.  [57] [58] 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 01:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] More Comment that said, deleting the article in its current state would be no loss, per nom and WP:NOTDICTIONARY .  78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 01:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Since this seems to meet WP:MUSIC 's sense of one of the more important labels, I'm leaning towards keep on this one, certainly until we hear from someone who speaks Norwegian and argues a lack of coverage.  Chubbles ( talk ) 02:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No consensus exists to the application of NMUSIC to record labels, which is generally presumed to fall under NCORP.  Graywalls ( talk ) 22:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He's not saying this to me, as he has said it to me before; he's saying it to all of you.  But he's not correct on this.  There is no general presumption of this, though he has pursued the establishment of such a general presumption.  Regular editors in music have never applied NCORP to labels, certainly not with any consistency; this is generally only done by editors interested in corporations who are asked to weigh in on labels.  I've noted before that it makes no sense to ignore WP:MUSIC, which does mention labels, when determining label notability, and I've also argued that it makes much more sense to consult music experts rather than business experts to determine encyclopedic merit in this realm.  I guess you all can vote your conscience on that one.  Chubbles ( talk ) 06:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wiki Project music was copied on those, at least in my last discussion.  The general notability guidelines recognize subject specific notability standards, such as those for geographical places, professors and bands/ensembles.  The key distinction is that your novel interpretation to apply bands/ensembles (NBAND) to record labels is not recognized and scribed into guidelines with broad consensus.  I suggested you RfC this but I see you didn't follow thorugh.  Graywalls ( talk ) 16:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not a novel interpretation; WP:MUSIC , which already has broad consensus, has read that way for many years, and as I have stated before multiple times, it's silly to ignore guidelines written by subject matter experts when discussing that subject matter.  The same three people keep having the same argument at every deletion discussion.  This is performance for a new audience rather than productive debate.  Chubbles ( talk ) 03:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The current consensus is that record labels are a company/organization and falls under WP:NORG , not WP:NMUSIC .  This article subject company fails to meet NCORP, therefore, it should be removed from the encyclopedia.  Graywalls ( talk ) 07:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Right now, no consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:14, 12 October 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus