Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badman Recording Co.

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. At a pure nose count, this might look a "no consensus", but AfD is not a vote. In the end, there is only one "keep" argument (except for an SPA) left standing, and that discusses "importance" rather than the amount of available reference material or a pass of the corporate notability guidelines, which are deliberately strict to prevent (or at least hinder) the use of Wikipedia for promotion and PR. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Badman Recording Co.[edit]

[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)

Non-notable local business. I PROD already, but it got reverted by the business owner, therefore, AfD is the next step. Fails WP:NCORP Graywalls (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and Oregon. Graywalls (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep (but expand/improve). Full disclosure: I'm a fan of several musicians on their roster. But here and here are two interviews with their founder; I don't know if those are RS or not, but they're professional outlets. Many of their artists, such as Mark Kozelek and the Innocence Mission, are highly notable (I realize that doesn't automatically make the label notable). As I said, I'm a fan, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but they have notable artists and have been around for 20+ years, when most indie record labels disappear after a couple of releases. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC) Striking my previous Keep. I am neutral on whether or not the article should stand, but based on discussion I now believe the article fails WP:NCORP and will leave it to other editors to decide whether that means keep or delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 04:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @WeirdNAnnoyed: while I know you're a fan, but do you believe the article meets NCORP and is your !vote still keep taking this into consideration? I have assessed the two sources you here in this table Graywalls (talk) 07:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.wweek.com/portland/article-21596-q-a-dylan-magierek-badman-recording-co.html	interview with the company owner.		? Willamette Week is a local paper of the Portland, Oregon area, and does not pass WP:AUD part of NCORP	✘ No
https://www.oregonmusicnews.com/dyan-magierek-badman-coffeeshop-conversations154	much of the contents in the audio recording is interview with Badman founder Dylan	?	the text portion is routine event annoucement and very trivial coverage.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

@Graywalls:No, I'm not completely committed to Keep. You and others do make a valid point about WP:NCORP and the sources may not be the best...so to answer your question I do not think it meets that guideline. I do like the idea of an article but in the absence of better sources I'm not going to fight for one. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the first source is a local alternative weekly. The second source is not even close to meeting in depth coverage; which is required for WP:NCORP. NCORP governs notability requirements for organizations and companies including recording companies, not WP:NMUSIC. Wikipedia is a worldwide scale encyclopedia. You can see the sourcing requirements in NCORP. Coverage in Portland, Oregon metropolitan area weekly alternative only has a marginal weight in establishing NCORP notability. Notability doesn't pass down from associating with someone notable, which is in the guideline WP:INHERITORG. Since you seem to be aware already, I am not sure why you're listing out names. Graywalls (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WeirdNAnnoyed, whose rationale follows the sense of an important record label described by WP:MUSIC. This is what we should be looking for when we are considering whether a label's cultural impact justifies encyclopedic coverage. Chubbles (talk) 01:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Chubbles, you're citing the wrong guideline. WP:MUSIC doesn't trump WP:NCORP, the guideline designated in WP:GNG for organizations and companies and we're not going to apply the more lenient guidelines you wish to apply whose usage is not backed by any guidelines. Graywalls (talk) 02:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NCORP does not trump anything either, and there's no reason why we would ignore the expertise of music editors when deciding what music-related articles are encyclopedic. This position - of NCORP trumping NMUSIC - is illogically not applied to bands and ensembles (which are most certainly corporations), and has been around for some years without being particularly persuasive. I addressed it at length in another AfD a while back, which discussion is instructive. Chubbles (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Record labels are not bundled with band/ensembles, they are organizations/companies. Topical expertise doesn't play a role in establishing notability of companies. NCORP was established specifically to address promotional editing and public relations activity and GNG points to NCORP as the SNG for companies. There is nothing guiding recording companies to NMUSIC. Two examples of discussions on this matter:1, 2.Graywalls (talk) 03:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, how those discussions were done outside of music communities. Topical expertise, of course, is at the heart of establishing the notability of labels, just as it is with bands and ensembles; otherwise we would be justified in establishing NCORP as the controlling notability standard for bands, too. PR problems apply just as much to bands as they do to labels (and are just as irrelevant when looking at defunct bands or labels, mind.) Chubbles (talk) 06:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistakenly thinking that the music subculture should get to decide notability guidelines for anything in the music industry matter, which would be like letting the automotive industry set a different notability standards for any business in the automotive business. For now, the general consensus is that NCORP is what should apply to record labels and the goal here is to evaluate if Badman Recording Co. fully merits inclusion through the view of NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 10:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The same logic would assert that bands should be covered by NCORP irrespective of NMUSIC, as well. Expertise should drive encyclopedic content, and business experts do not cover music well (except for major labels, none of which need any serious discussion vis-a-vis NCORP). None of what you've asserted demands that we ignore the only people who regularly contribute to these articles or read these articles - people interested in music. Chubbles (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Graywalls may have a point, it seems WP:MUSIC does not cover recording companies, which would have to meet NCORP. So this boils down to whether the sources I mentioned above qualify as significant coverage. I'm still in favor of Keep (but not very firmly); I will shut up now. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. I looked and saw discussions suggesting that labels be added to WP:NMUSIC but certainly no consensus for those suggestions. As it stands WP:NMUSIC does not cover labels, whereas WP:NORG does, and the article fails to meet that notability guideline as well as WP:GNG. Searching online I could find no reliable sources showing notability, and as interviews like the ones above do not show notability the two sources above do not contribute to meeting any relevant notability guideline. - Aoidh (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - gotta comment here. Graywall's contention that record labels fall under NCORP is stated as fact in many of these AfDs. It is absolutely his right to hold such a position, and it is not an unreasonable one. However, consensus has never been established that record labels should meet NCORP, for several reasons. By longtime precedent, record labels were judged by a inverse interpretation of NMUSIC #5, if the label had multiple notable bands signed and released by that label, it was typically been kept over the long term. On the other hand, attempts to concisely define notability for record labels at NMUSIC have failed. Why many labels have been deemend notable in the past, while not meeting strict interpretations of NCORP, boils down to the fact that a record label with many notable artists or releases has demonstrated significant impact on either regional or musical culture, and unless the label is particularly tied to one artist, it is very difficult to merge any WP:V content to any one topic, thereby violating WP:PRESERVE. That said, record labels with current operation are WP:PROMO magnets, which is exactly the reason why NCORP was set up in the first place. My opinion is that we need to think about why a topic exists. Does it contain useful, verifiable information for musicologists, music historians, collectors, etc.? Or does merely serve to promote the wondrous capabilities of the label's management? It merits thinking. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article exists, because Rdeeble (talk · contribs) created this article on 15 September 2011. Interestingly, Dylanmagierek (talk · contribs) created Robert Deeble on the same day. According to what's out there on the web, Magierek is Deeble's producer. Desire for visibility by the subject and their associates is a reasonable hypothesis for why these articles were created. Graywalls (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition to the removal of PROD by the company founder & owner, this is a new PR editing by a single purpose account stuffing flowery contents supported by poor sources like bandcamp and discogs. Graywalls (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I find 78.26's comments thoughtful and illuminating. Rigid and legalistic application of rules is not what we do here, and all guidelines should be interpreted with our encyclopedic purpose first and foremost. That's particularly important when, as here, we have guidelines that appear to work at cross purposes. But turning to the facts here, we plainly do have a promotional abuse problem, and we don't seem to have the kind of sourcing necessary for robust coverage. That leads to me to think that in this particular case NCORP considerations (which I would loosely summarize as "let's make sure our coverage is robust against commercial abuse") should probably trump NMUSIC considerations ("let's make sure our coverage of music is encyclopedically comprehensive"). (As a side note, from some light Googling it seems plausible to me that Magierek might meet WP:NARTIST point 3; perhaps that could be a better way of structuring coverage that could meet the goals of both guidelines.) -- Visviva (talk) 05:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Full disclosure: I am a fan of several Badman artists. Having reviewed the case for deletion, I would like to present an argument for the retention of the Badman Recording Co. Wikipedia page. As others have pointed out, it is essential to understand the impact and significance of Badman Recording Co. in the music industry, particularly within the indie music scene. Firstly, the fact that this label has been active for over two decades and has managed numerous notable artists during this time suggests a certain level of durability and influence within its sphere. Several of these artists have separate Wikipedia pages indicating their own notability, showing that the label plays a significant role in supporting and promoting noteworthy artists. Secondly, I would like to challenge the assertion that the sources provided do not meet the criteria for significant coverage. The interviews with the founder in professional outlets offer valuable insight into the functioning and philosophy of the label. While these sources may not be as mainstream as some might desire, they provide an in-depth look into the workings of an independent music label, which is beneficial to an understanding of the industry as a whole. The "mainstream-ness" of a source should not be the sole determinant of its reliability or its value in establishing notability. The focus should be on the quality of the content provided. In the context of WP:MUSIC, it is also worth noting that record labels serve a crucial function in the music industry. The decisions they make - which artists to sign, how to promote them, etc. - have a significant influence on music culture. Therefore, they should be evaluated from a music industry perspective as well. A strict application of WP:NCORP might not fully capture the nuances of notability in these cases. Finally, regarding the promotional tone of the article, I believe this can be addressed through edits and improvements to the article, rather than deletion. Wikipedia has a firm policy against promotional content, but this should not mean that subjects with promotional content should be deleted outright. Instead, efforts should be made to ensure that the content is neutral and factual. For example, it would seem useful and factual to allow the page owner to post the artists in their roster. In conclusion, it is my opinion that the Badman Recording Co. satisfies the notability criteria when viewed through a balanced application of WP:NCORP and WP:MUSIC, and I therefore propose that it should be kept and improved, not deleted. -- MolluskArgento (talk) 08:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC) — MolluskArgento (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Just to clarify, there is no such thing as the "page owner". Please see WP:OWN. Nobody "owns" any page. This does not mean that people associated with the article subject should be creating or directly editing pages which results in conflict of interest issues. I noticed you created the account specifically to participate in this AfD. May I ask how you were acquainted to this discussion? Do you have any connection to Dylan, or Badman Recordings? Graywalls (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply @WeirdNAnnoyed. When you've decided, please reflect your !vote to what you find to be appropriate taking everything into consideration. Graywalls (talk) 04:05, 22 July 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.