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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

STMPD RCRDS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Newly created company with no sustained coverage and no credible claim to notability. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 19:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As search results found not enough coverage to claim notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NandoFWS (talk • contribs) 19:54, 12 March 2016‎

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There are no notable results for "STMPD RCRDS" on Google, save for one mention in the Music Times, and, even combined with the two in-article references, that's not enough to pass the general notability guidelines. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 19:54, 12 March 2016 (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.