Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric 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. Per the arguments involving the presence of third-party sources provided later. This discussion was a bit confusing because early on we had a lot of "keep, it exists and is important" with little evidence cited thereof and sources that are connected to the subject (which per WP:GNG do not establish notability), but the later arguments are well supported. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Records[edit]

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

Eric Records (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)

I can't find any significant third party coverage of this label. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying there is no information for this record label is not true. Eric Records is an established music release company in business since 1969. They are a smaller, specialized release company that does most of their business via direct sales on their official website (http://www.ericrecords.com/index.html), but also has their product available for sale on Amazon. They have an official Facebook page here: https://www.facebook.com/ericrecords/. They can be reached there or on their site.
The original base of this page came from the converted German Wiki page (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Records), as there was no English equivalent. I've included multiple reference websites for them at the bottom of the page, and I've made all the citations I can think of. I am only a novice Wikipedia editor so I am asking for assistance with fixing things that need to get corrected. GodzFire (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC) GodzFire (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So you and I have both looked for significant third-party coverage and there simply isn't any. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've included multiple reference websites to confirm this place does exist and is what this page states it to be:
GodzFire (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GodzFire: Existence doesn't mean notable. None of those pages you've linked to indicate significant independent coverage of the topic. I have looked as much as you, and I just haven't found that those sources exist. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP this new Eric page. Lots of releases by this company, but never a proper English page for Wiki readers to research more about their highly praised (DES) Digital Extraction Stereo creations or high quality mono-to-Stereo new mixes. With modern powerful audio software/hardware and careful sound mastering nowadays, it can finally take off and provide listeners newer stereo experiences with yesterdays mono oldies. Every new Eric releases have received lots of praising in different music forums. It's worth to have a page introducing this new trends and possibilities that many people once thought to be impossible in the past. This new page has just been created for 3 days only, it needs time to grow, more and more fans will certainly come in and improve the contents in future(we just don't have such page/chance to gather together and start it up before). Attached two newspaper source articles today here as a support.
[1]
[2]
Chiu.0606 (talk) 06:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I find it incredibly troubling and disturbing that it's come to the point where sharing and WANTING to share knowledge is now seemingly determined by an elite group of people ("experts") interpreting things for everyone else and IF they deem it 'famous' enough to exist, instead of it existing simply because it DOES exist!
Ward Cunningham, inventor of the wiki, described the essence of the Wiki concept as the following:
1- A wiki invites all users—not just experts—to edit any page or to create new pages within the wiki Web site, using only a standard "plain-vanilla" Web browser without any extra add-ons.
2- Wiki promotes meaningful topic associations between different pages by making page link creation intuitively easy and showing whether an intended target page exists or not.
3- A wiki is not a carefully crafted site created by experts and professional writers, and designed for casual visitors. Instead, it seeks to involve the typical visitor/user in an ongoing process of creation and collaboration that constantly changes the website landscape.
If this page is removed, it would be violating 2 of those basic principles. Eric Records does exist, and there are hundreds and hundreds of people who have items it's created. Just because they might not post on Wikipedia (or know HOW to for that matter), doesn't negate the fact that they could attest to it if you asked them.
GodzFire (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GodzFire: Your hostility and expressed knowledge of all us potentially bad apples is amazing. I take offense at your lack of civility. I am going to go right now and get all my other bad apple cronies to !vote this down just to spite you. Crap!, it seems my list of cabal friends is empty. I am impressed with your many years of editing experience and multitude of contributions that allows you to make such a mistaken hypothesis --IF THE PAGE WERE TO BE REMOVED. I would suggest during your next illustrious 178 edits you might consider reading the various notability and sourcing policies and guidelines and possibly wait until you have twice my small number of edits before becoming so cynical and bitter. As it happens, I have been aware of this label for many years and am also surprised it was nominated. Don't tell anyone though as I am still looking for my cabal friends list. Double crap! I thought I was in stealth mode. Otr500 (talk) 03:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Eric Records has existed and does exist. It has been mentioned several times in Billboard over the years -- a couple of examples:
Billboard citation from 1981
Billboard ERIC advertisement 1968
Cited in the footnotes of a Google book Frank Zappa and the And Google Book "Frank Zappa and the And" footnotes
It's the same company that has been in continuous operation for 51 years.
Eric Records has been an early utilizer of techniques (Spectral Editing/De-Mix) extracting elements from monophonic recordings to create or enhance stereo recording. Discussion here:
De-mix/DES and recently utilized by Abbey Road Studios in the UK for recent releases here: Abbey Road De-mix These aren't conceptual ideas but real, consumer products that need documentation. The EMI page will inform you about the process and technique, which after many years of hard work is finally producing marketable results.
PaulBigelow (talk) 03:01, 01 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Possible meatpuppetry. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the largest re-issuer of music "oldies" in the United States, at least in the 1980s and 1990s. They are still highly important for owners of juke boxes. I will look for independent sources (for instance, the audio quality of the 45s is not universally admired among record collectors....) 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pls allow me to add back a magazine source found today: 1975 Feb 22 vol 30 Record World - Tribute to Paul Anka section [3] (pdf page: 39, 56, 79, 83). Paul talked about how he met Bill Buster (Eric records) and ended up having his 8 reissues on Eric. Chiu.0606 (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are allowed to discuss the notability all you want, and bringing independent, reliable sources which demonstrate notability is to be encouraged, but you are not allowed to !vote more than once. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So in addition to all the links I posted above, we have:
Wikipedia says "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity". Eric Records's peak and prime decades were the late 60s, 70s, and 80s. If Wikipedia was a thing back in that time, there would be no issue confirming it's significance with all sorts of newspaper and magazine publications available to be used as references. The problem is, just like so much other published content from that time, the vast majority hasn't been digitized and not online to utilize. This doesn't mean it's not an important part of history, and should be remembered. Please, see that we are trying here. GodzFire (talk) 00:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addition: Does the fact that Eric Records is on Amazon and has it's products there help at all? Just do a search for "Hard To Find 45s On" or "Hard To Find Jukebox Classics" There's countless examples there. Here are just four notable ones:
GodzFire (talk) 01:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GodzFire (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's even more mentions of Bill Buster and Eric Records:
GodzFire (talk) 01:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further mentions:
In addition, the Eric Records product is sold by reputed bookselling company Barnes & Noble. Search for :Hard To Find 45s On" (https://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/Hard+to+Find+45s+on?_requestid=1994760) or "Hard To Find Jukebox Classics" (https://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/hard+to+find+jukebox+classics?_requestid=1995161)
GodzFire (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Honestly, it seems quite preposterous to see the article on Epic Records, a legendary label, up for deletion. There are myriads of sources, some of which were cited above, about this historic house of recorded music. If we'd pile on more we will have a case of overkill. The only comment I can add to the discussion is a humble and sincere suggestion that we all follow WP:BEFORE. -The Gnome (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing vote to Neutral with apologies. I cannot participate any more in this AfD after mistaking the name of the label. The extreme notability of what I thought this was about made me rush to a suggestion. Take care, all. -The Gnome (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Gnome: Eric, not EPIC. And FYI, I did. And I did as a HUGE fan of the label, owning many of the compilations and having met Bill Buster. I actually wanted to create the article years ago but the only sources I found were the same ones GodzFire did. As you can see, it took some deeper dedicated research by a few others to find more reliable sources, so I commend them. Now, if kept, I can clean the mess up.
Above comment added by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. -The Gnome (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that it's shown there's clearly a not a consensus for deletion, and there's been plenty of significant third party coverage of this label found, can we please remove the deletion prompt on the page and the deletion discussion links?
GodzFire (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comments I was surprised this was nominated in the first place, and then I was more surprised it was a recent creation. Eric and Collectibles dominate the oldies reissues. As nominated, the article looks highly promotional, not supported by sources independent of the topic. Adding "sources" such as Amazon is actually the opposite of helpful, because it makes it look like we're advertising, and not providing dispassionate narrative. A reissue label such as this achieves notability differently than a "normal" label, in my opinion, in that you can't claim it has had a significant impact on musical culture by the roster of notable artists. If the artists weren't already notable, they wouldn't be reissuing the material. However, the high market share, the frequency with which one runs across their records (if you're into 45s), and the place this company has had in retaining cultural recognition for artist make this a topic that is of benefit to the encyclopedia. Although I love discographies, I'm not sure it is appropriate in this context because it looks spammy since many of these are still available for sale. It is not time to close this as a "speedy keep" as there is not overwhelming consensus that this should in fact be kept, if I were to close this discussion this instant I would close as "no consensus" myself. It is concerning when several new accounts all pop up at the same article, and it is concerning when and editor says "we are trying here". That could be concerning, but it could also indicate that several people are using a single account. It is ok if more than one editor says "hey, look, there's no Eric Records article, let's make one!" and then register, but it would be far better if they disclosed their relationship to each other. I understand that finding sources for this can be difficult, because a google search pulls up mostly hits on an education database, and various sports accomplishment. I hope that helps some of the newer editors who have participated here. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to sources such as this one and this one. However, this discussion has some completely irrelevant reasoning and dozens of unhelpful sources, which has been identified by !voters on both sides. I'm well aware this participation is from two editors involved in their first or second AfD, which is even harder than usual when somewhat forced to participate early on. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • To provide some background and explanation: This whole thing stemmed from the a single post I made on a stereo oldies board I frequent. I had been researching all the Eric Records releases since I had wanted to track down releases which had songs I wanted to get. Due to the sheer amount, I created a spreadsheet listing all the releases and other information categories.
Since it took me such a long time to create, and the information could be helpful to others, I created a post on the oldies board sharing it (https://bsnpubs.websitetoolbox.com/post/eric-records-complete-listing-10110999 if you have an account). The feedback was very positive with someone then stating there was no Eric Records page on Wikipedia, and it definitely deserved to have one started. Another member pointed out there was already a pre-created one on the German version of Wikipedia (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Records). Since I had worked on a Wikipedia page in the past and somewhat familiar with the process, I went ahead and converted the German page to English, cleaned some things up, and added the listings I created to it. I never assumed there was going to be an issue since the German page already existed and that it was a simply an oversight that the English page was missing. What started as a simple helping hand to create the page (since {respectfully} the majority of users there weren't knowledgeable how to do it on Wikipedia themselves or even have an account) then turned into the craziness that we're at now.
I do not have multiple accounts; the other users are truly separate, unique people; I believe most from the same board, who came over to help when I requested assistance with locating and producing references that would satisfy the claims of the topic not having enough third party significance or notoriety (or whatever it's called). I'll be honest, this whole thing wasn't anything I planned or signed up for. I have no idea about any of these processes and guidelines and such. I'm really just a novice user. I only wanted just share the information so it would be available to others, and frustrated when it seemed like a few select people were deciding what they felt was "important enough" to be information that's allowed on here. I really just kind of want to wash my hands and be done with it all now, as this whole experience has really disillusioned me on wanting to/trying to contribute on here.
GodzFire (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Godzfire: - picking up our guideline to edit can take a bit of time (if you don't mind some cliches, take a look at our interactive tutorial. Deletion is so complicated usually it's picked up a bit of a time, rather than having to handle it at the start all at once. One good initial point - we don't judge importance, we judge a thing called notability (which, in rough terms, means how much reliable coverage it has in secondary sources). Nosebagbear (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per User:78.26. This is certainly notable even if some of us confuse it with Epic records. I did a Google search as a refresher and it automatically redirected me to Epic so I was confounded for a moment. Actually I am !voting keep to spite all those phantom cabal friends I surely must have, that I could not find, because I am quick to disagree when warranted. @GodzFire: I would suggest that if you have high blood pressure you might want to keep an eye on it. If you decide to hang around you might want to consider not dealing with anything where you take things personally. Passion is a good thing so maybe you can channel into that. If you are naturally hot-headed, explosive, or take offense at anyone that disagrees with you these might be warning signs to just chill because that could create future issues. You have gotten "worked up" over a more than likely non-issue. There is an old saying "You can attract more bees with honey than with vinegar". Even in disagreement it is better to remain civil and in the future be careful mixing outside (off-Wikipedia) things with Wikipedia stuff. I have seen these types of "postings" bring several single purpose accounts into AFD's that just does not actually help. Technically that could be considered an actual cabal issue when the "we's" from "somewhere else" group together. Aside from my advice, that you can toss in the trash if you desire, I am glad you created the article and happy from your point of view that I must now be excluded from any possible Wikipedia cabal list since we are in agreement. I was afraid you would blow my cover. There is another old saying "It ain't over until the lady wearing the big dress sings (or something like that). At any rate, good luck and hopefully happy(er) future editing. Otr500 (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.thesuburban.com/arts_and_entertainment/joel-goldenberg-the-sound-breakthrough-has-finally-happened/article_7bbca08e-7052-5b59-9eb6-9cb57f7e643a.html
  2. ^ https://www.huffpost.com/entry/two-new-cds-reignite-stereo-vs-mono-debate_b_58ac61cde4b0417c4066c2ee
  3. ^ http://www.qrzcq.com/mirrors/www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-Record-World/70s/75/RW-1975-02-22.pdf
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/Eric_Records&oldid=1110482491"