Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ferret Music
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 no consensus. Shimeru 07:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ferret Music[edit]
- Ferret Music (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)
Contested CSD - Fails WP:ORG is promotional as it is just a list of current or past clients. Codf1977 (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as CSD contester. A list of "current or past clients" - that is, bands signed to the label - is encyclopedic and essential information for a properly robust article about a record label. The label is one that, in terms of WP:MUSIC, has been around for more than a few years and has a significant roster of notable artists. Some of the most successful of those artists are Chimaira, Every Time I Die, Funeral For a Friend, Blessthefall, and The Bronx. Google News has plenty of hits. Chubbles (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As per WP:ORG :
| “ | No inherited notability An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. If the organization itself did not receive notice, then the organization is not notable. For example, if a notable person buys a restaurant, the restaurant does not "inherit" notability from its owner. |
” |
- So just because a notable band is a client does not make Ferret Music notable. I have been through the first two pages of the GNews hits and the only references to Ferret Music are mealy incidental of the type Ferret Music signs Band x or Band Y is recording a new album for Ferret Music or 'Song Z is released by Ferret Music. Codf1977 (talk) 10:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When Ferret Music signs Band X, and a news agency reports on it, that is substantial coverage of the label as well as the band. It is not incidental. When press agencies review records put out by the label, that is substantial coverage of the label as well as the band. When Billboard magazine publishes chart positions for songs and albums released by the label, that is substantial coverage of the label as well as the songs and albums. Ferret has repeatedly done all three of these things. Ferret has also had articles written about it in magazines, but as far as I'm concerned that's beside the point. Its roster demonstrates clear cultural importance, and the encyclopedia would suffer were it to be removed, because it is an encyclopedic subject. Labels make cultural products and are thus different from, say, an investment bank or a supermarket chain; they should no more be judged as corporations than bands themselves should be (and we don't use WP:CORP to determine a band's notability, even though bands are businesses). The best and most specific criterion for determining a label's encyclopedic worth is given in WP:MUSIC, where it states a band is notable if it is on an important label - one that has been around for more than a few years and has a roster with many notable acts. Ferret passes this test by a whale. Chubbles (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that you may misunderstand what Significant coverage is, The General notability guideline define it as:
- When Ferret Music signs Band X, and a news agency reports on it, that is substantial coverage of the label as well as the band. It is not incidental. When press agencies review records put out by the label, that is substantial coverage of the label as well as the band. When Billboard magazine publishes chart positions for songs and albums released by the label, that is substantial coverage of the label as well as the songs and albums. Ferret has repeatedly done all three of these things. Ferret has also had articles written about it in magazines, but as far as I'm concerned that's beside the point. Its roster demonstrates clear cultural importance, and the encyclopedia would suffer were it to be removed, because it is an encyclopedic subject. Labels make cultural products and are thus different from, say, an investment bank or a supermarket chain; they should no more be judged as corporations than bands themselves should be (and we don't use WP:CORP to determine a band's notability, even though bands are businesses). The best and most specific criterion for determining a label's encyclopedic worth is given in WP:MUSIC, where it states a band is notable if it is on an important label - one that has been around for more than a few years and has a roster with many notable acts. Ferret passes this test by a whale. Chubbles (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| “ | "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. | ” |
- and as such none of the sources I have looked at can be said to show "Significant coverage" of Ferret Music. I am sorry you feel that Ferret Music should not be held to WP:CORP or WP:ORG but they unquestionably apply here and Ferret Music does not IMO meet them. Codf1977 (talk)
- This is good, these are good test cases, because never before, so far as I know, has an independent record label of serious importance been held to deletion as a corporation (except maybe File 13 Records). Eulogy and Ferret are both actually culturally significant labels, far more than File 13, and if the community decides that they are to be judged as businesses, it will set a precedent which, if employed, will result in there being a comparatively small number of articles on independent record labels, and will by extension shrink the number of band articles on the site. Naturally, there are many who think this can only help the encyclopedia, and it would be fascinating to watch the unfolding of events after such a decision. I'm excited to see how this plays out. Chubbles (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- and as such none of the sources I have looked at can be said to show "Significant coverage" of Ferret Music. I am sorry you feel that Ferret Music should not be held to WP:CORP or WP:ORG but they unquestionably apply here and Ferret Music does not IMO meet them. Codf1977 (talk)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The musicians are notable, but the record label isn't. Joe Chill (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A label that has multiple notable bands is notable. the artists distributed are what makes a publisher of any sort of genre notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 14 June 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.