Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Function 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

=[[Function Records]]=

:{{la|Function Records}} ([{{fullurl:Function Records|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Function Records}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Non-notable small record label, with only 19 releases in its entire 8-year history. Not even a hint of notability, and no sources, reliable or otherwise. Calton | Talk 14:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete I wanted to keep it, but I can't find much. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep See no reason to delete this. Very real/valid record label. Hard to find a compilation of info as conveniently compiled as this.

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources means that notability is not established. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2009 (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.