Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rham!

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rham!

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A record label with little evidence of notability. Appears to be defunct. Sources in article do not support notability: Discogs WP:RSDISCOGS , force9.net (a blog), OfficialCharts.com (mentions Rham! is a record's label), Guardian mentions Lord Rockingham's XI; neither of which does mentions Rham!. Google search produces little except for existing citations. Adakiko (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. 21:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail wp:GNG. Adakiko (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to fail wp:GNG Vivibelle (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC) The majority of the Rham! article is repeated information from Wikipedia articles on A Guy Called Gerald and Voodoo Ray.[reply]
Delete The coverage is too light. Fails WP:GNG. I did a search for more coverage, and found this [[1]], which would be better in the A Guy Called Gerald article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:14, 4 July 2022 (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.