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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasuredisc Records

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, with no significant coverage, and in fact, basically no coverage at all other than a few mirrors of the article. The official site no longer exists. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's rather obvious this label doesn't meet the notability guidelines. __meco (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This label has only a single act signed, and that act is a side project of a musician best known for other things. The label is not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, on account of WP:TOOSOON. They appear to be a new label just what I'm seeing. A bit spammy in my opinion, and I'd be inclined for db-corp. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, Dennis, they had a single release in 2005 and have been inactive since. So, maybe it's "too late". But the bottom line is "not notable". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JayJay^{Talk to me} 17:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only a single act signed is really not enough. Cavarrone (talk) 10:11, 18 June 2012 (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.