Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Country Turtle Records

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. The sources found by altering the search terms swung this in the direction of a keep, though only just. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Country Turtle Records[edit]

Country Turtle Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This record label has no significant coverage I can find, and when I tried to speedy it, it was declined on the basis that it was founded by a notable person, however this argument isn't valid in that notability isn't inherited. So therefore I am bringing this up before a community discussion on this label. I only came up with 9 Ghits after weeding out all the Wikipedia hits.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 18:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. --   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 18:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:CORP - agree no mater what the company does or who starts it, it needs significant coverage of it own and this does not exist in this case. Codf1977 (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (what else ;-) Reasons (as I stated in the discussion page to that article): ... and I always thought Wikipedia being an encyclopedia where information is provided even for things not available elsewhere on the internet and thus helping people who search for information about little known facts - but that may have been my false belief (counting "GHits" instead of arguing seems to be the thing to do ;-) ----- My motivation for building a "Country Turtle Records" article (stub) has been simply because the sister record label "Mamlish Records" dealing with Don Kent's blues output should be supplemented by its sister label founded to release country music ... Both existing articles (Don Kent, Mamlish Records - which I built in 2006) have never since been doubted for their notability !!! (I apologize for my English - this is not my mother tongue) ------- Meanwhile I have added a Country Turtle Records discography to my American Music site [1] - so in case those wise here folk decide against Wikipedia "notability", people wondering about information about CTR may find what they're searching for via google ... Just wait until the google robots did their job ;-) StefanWirz (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)*Comment Wikipedia isn't about keeping "little known facts". I recommend that you read WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS to understand why this music label is not notable enough for inclusion into Wikipedia. In the case of the link you mentioned on your site, unfortunately that cannot be used as it is not considered a reliable source. The Don Kent and Mamlish Records articles have been tagged with the appropriate issues as they do not appear to have established notability either.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 20:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I have lookd at thoes links but cant find any coverage of Country Turtle Records so I do not see how they help - please read WP:INHERITED. Codf1977 (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just search the resp. files for "country turtle" and you'll find what's individually written there about that label; The first reference quotes Pat Conte's liner notes to CT-6000, the second lists all tracks of CT-6001 and the third lists both CT-6000 and CT-6002 as part of The Dixon Brother's discography --- not too difficult a task, ain't it ;-) StefanWirz (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how what you listed above qualifies as reliable sources containing significant coverage. I don't consider disographies to be "significant coverage". Perhaps you could enlighten me? Because I just don't see it.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 19:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pleased to "enlighten" you with some facts you obviously never heard of: 1. Country Turtle was the first label reissuing the Dixon Brothers (notability not to be doubted - please read their article) pre-war recordings on vinyl, 2. Record labels of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s naturally cannot bring forth "GHits" the way labels of the computer age do; and, btw: Meanwhile I added references with "reliable sources containing significant coverage" to the Don Kent and Mamlish Records articles, so claiming those as non notable is yesterday's newspaper ;-) --- Sorry if I may have failed to reference this correctly, but I'm not a Wikipedia expert (and never will, even if you permanently advise me to read this and that of those here guidelines - I do this and up to now have always found them to be interpretable in one or another way - they just don't have anything about "Country Turtle Records" ;-), but one of American Music ;-) StefanWirz (talk) 09:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue her is one of "is Country Turtle Records notable ?" and to decide that WP has long standing poilices, guidelines and conventions. In the case of companies (see WP:CORP) which says "[a company] is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization. ". None of the links you have provided show that level of coverage. Codf1977 (talk) 10:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Codf1977, so you meanwhile found 'em (in your previous message: "cant find any coverage of Country Turtle Records"), but can't accept 'em - that's quite another story ;-) Let's see what this here "discussion" brings forth from other participants than the usual crowd ... StefanWirz (talk) 11:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
please do not confuse "mentions" with "coverage". Codf1977 (talk) 11:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you search for "Country Turtle" LP -wikipedia (not "Country Turtle Records") you'll find 10 Google Books hits and over 50 general Google hits (ignoring blogs and articles about turtles!). I believe there is sufficient coverage of this record label in secondary sources to establish notability. For example here, here and here. —Bruce1eetalk 12:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I checked the links you posted and all of them only mention the name, nothing else. This is not significant coverage, just trivial mentions. Yoenit (talk) 08:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. as per Bruce1ee. The Dixon Brothers' material is fascinating and notable. The history of country music and blues is a history of small record labels. Mick gold (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As long as the article is accurate, it appears that this label has published some interesting artists, so the article may provide some information that is not easily found on the web. This information may be useful to a future researcher. DougHill (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no way to verify whether it is accurate as it has no reliable sources and "being useful" is a typical Argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Yoenit (talk) 07:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • What is the problem with the sources (especially the books) cited on the page? DougHill (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is nothing wrong with the books, but they don't cover any of the information given in the lead. How do I know they were set up by Don Kent? or that it was the first label to release the Dixon Brothers' prewar material on vinyl? You need sources for that. Yoenit (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This simply fails wikipedia notability and verifiability criteria. Yoenit (talk) 08:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I advocate that this article be kept as it is about a notable historical resource -- iff those statements can be verified. DS (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you explain why you see Country Turtle as a "notable historical resource"? Yoenit (talk) 07:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because it is preserving early recorded music which was originally recorded in a much more perishable format. DS (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please take into account that I meanwhile added to the article two (hopefully reliable ;-) secondary sources as references: 1. allmusic.com [5], which has a review of the first CT album of The Dixon Brothers ; 2. A review in the John Edwards Memorial Foundation Quarterly of the second CT album "Gambler's Lament" [6]; you may also have a look at the "Discographical data" included in The Dixon Brothers' article to verify the fact, that CT was the first label to re-release their prewar recordings (referenced by Patrick Huber: Linthead stomp: the creation of country music in the Piedmont South) [7] StefanWirz (talk) 08:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not gonna dispute the reliability of these sources, but if they even mention Country turtle records themselfs it is a trivial mention. For example, the Linthead stomp book says: "Albums and CD reissues of the Dixons brothers music include Beyond black smoke (Country turtle 6000);Rambling and Gambling(Country turtle 6002),[further summation of other albums]."
I am not familiar with classification systems for music, but (Country turtle 6000) & (Country turtle 6002) seem to be the classification names of the two albums, not a mention of Country Turtle Records itself.
If we look at the Allmusic, very nice the album is reviewed there, but Country turtle is not mentioned in the review, so I don't see why it is relevant. Keep in mind notability is not inherited. The same goes for the JEMF review, it may have some effect on the notability of the album, but unless Country Turtle itself is also discussed it is irrelevant for this AFD.
With regards to "Linthead stomp" being a source for CT being the first label re-release their prewar recordings, I find this borderline original research. Linthead does not say explicitely say they were the first to do so, just that they did. It also doesn't say it was prewar material. The statement " Country turtle released two albums from the Dixon brothers" seems to be all you can get from that source. Yoenit (talk) 09:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still I have an ambivalent feeling thinking about what nice discographies I'd be able to create if'n I wasted (?) my time in this here nitpickin' process - but I admit it's also challenging - so let's go on: What about that JEMF Quarterly review I added as reference ? You forgot (?) to comment on that ... StefanWirz (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added it later, but here it is again: "The same goes for the JEMF review, it may have some effect on the notability of the album, but unless Country Turtle itself is also discussed it is irrelevant for this AFD." Yoenit (talk) 09:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just found out that user:StefanWirz posted notifications on the talkpages of 9 editors about this AFD, 3 of which voted keep in result. The messages themselves were neutral, but as AFD's are frequently archived with less than 4 four votes this smells like votestacking to me. Yoenit (talk) 09:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You surely have noticed, that I not only asked in a "neutral" way, but even encouraged those I asked to contradict ("could you please be so kind as to have a look at this and tell me if I'm completely wrong in my opinion about that label's notability !?!"), since my motivation is to find out if my views (as a relative non-insider of all those Wikipedia rules) are perhaps completely wrong --- and one of those I asked just did that: Contradict[[8]] my opinion !!! StefanWirz (talk) 10:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added {{notavote}} to the top; I agree it has the fragrance of canvasing to me; posting anything (other than a WP AfD template) which has a link to a AfD and ask someone to look at it is IMO. Codf1977 (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I didn't know that there is such a thing as an "WP AfD template" and I fear I don't have the time to ever learn about all those Wikipedia specifica. StefanWirz (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I already state I did not have a problem with the tone of the message, but it does nothing that you contacted 8 people (friends?) who did not seem in any way involved with the article in question. (a case could be made for contacting Bruce1ee, as he created the related Dorsey Dixon article). Yes one of them disagreed with you and another posted on your talkpage [9], but they wisely stayed away from the discussion here. Doughill and Mick Gold on the other hand showed up here and voted keep based on "its interesting" and "may be useful" Yoenit (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
StefanWirz and I have communicated in the past on Talk pages of Wikipedia on questions relating to discographies of country and blues records. I contributed my vote because I believe that the Dixon Brothers are significant figures in the history of country music. Anyone seeking to understand the discographical history of the Dixon Brothers would benefit from the presence of Country Turtle article in Wikipedia. You may find this argument unconvincing, but I would ask you not to breach WP:AGF. Mick gold (talk) 08:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is here that notability is not inherited. If they are so important to the understanding of the Dixon brothers, feel free to include a bit about them in the Dixon brothers article. Yoenit (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I selected those I sent my question for advice to those people who - on my talk page [10] - have expressed their appreciation of my activities here at Wikipedia and elsewhere and thus gave me a sign that they care about the same issues I occupy myself with --- if you like to call those "friends" you may do so (even though I have nothing else to do with them - but in times of Facebook the term "friends" obviously doesn't mean much anymore ;-) Since I know very few Wikipedia users whose primary field of activity is "AFD", "notability", etc., those were not on my list --- But you surely will not hold against me that I posted my question about discographies as "reliable sources" at [11], or would you ? I'm striving for (new) wisdom, not to impose the little I got on others ;-) StefanWirz (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Meanwhile I have added one or two references to the article, and - since I don't know if I referenced the statement "CT was the first label to release The Dixon Brothers' prewar recordings" in a proper way - the following explanations for those "not familiar with classification systems for music": 1. All prewar Dixon Brothers tracks are listed in [12]; 2. The track lists of CT-6000 and CT-6002 are given at [13]; 3. By comparing all the tracks listed in the first source with the CT track lists of the second source you may easily find out, that CT re-released some of the prewar (not postwar) recordings; 4. The information about all the vinyl and CD re-releases of the Dixon Brothers' prewar material can be found at [14]; 5. Knowing the release dates of all the re-releases (CT 6001 in 1973, all others later) it becomes clear that Country Turtle was the first label to re-release The Dixon Brothers' prewar recordings - n'est-ce pas? This may sound like "original research" --- For me it's just putting three and three together ! StefanWirz (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may seem simple to you, but it is an obvious case of synthesis of published material that advances a position, which indeed a form of original research. Also, in this case source number 2 (your own website) is not a reliable source. Yoenit (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Country_Turtle_Records&oldid=1140753174"