Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Orleans Records (2nd nomination)

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. Sandstein 18:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Orleans Records[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)

Not enough sources exist to write an article of substance. Questionable notability. Article has been sitting here since 2009. Vmavanti (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep -- I had a hard time deciding "keep or delete" on this one. Ultimately, I think we should delete the discography section per WP:UNDUE and leave the article as a two-sentence stub.

The only sources I could find were the following:

All About Jazz - one passing mention

Google Books - Short mention under Larry Hamilton

Enacademic - looks like a copy of the Wiki article

Tulane Univ. Digital Library - just a photograph of the building before it was torn down

Google Books - a few mentions on page 51

Google Books - some scattered mentions

American Record Companies and Producers - Seems like there is an entry inside for New Orleans Record Shop, but I don't own the book so I don't know how significantly the entry covers the subject

I find the arguments on a previous AFD to be mildly persuasive, namely that "a record company could[n't] last for 3 decades, especially in that era, without being at least somewhat notable" and "Shellac 78 record era company. I argue that record companies from this era tend to be notable in themselves, as making records in that era needed a considerable amount of industrial investment, quite unlike how easy it was to start what was called a "record company" in recent decades."

Ultimately, I fall on the side of keep because the WP:Notability page says "[Notability] is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." The "occasional exceptions" seem to mean that we should WP:Ignore all rules if it helps improve Wikipedia. I think that may apply here; the encyclopedia is better served by having a two-sentence stub than by having no mention/no article.

In sum, I think the discography section should be removed per WP:UNDUE and the two sentences in the lead are fine to keep as they are. Ikjbagl (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The first AfD, while not perfect in reasoning, was generally compelling, and I find myself in agreement with the above editor. I disagree that the discography should be wiped, though - so long as it is verifiable, it's certainly encyclopedic content as the principal activity of the label, and can't see how it would be UNDUE to include it. Chubbles (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have never found it necessary to adopt an "Ignore the rules" approach, and I find when people do so, it's an unimpressive act of selfishness and irresponsibility. I have no problem refraining from taking sides. I don't have an agenda. I disagree with some of the rules, but I'm able to follow them. This is called special pleading: "a record company could[n't] last for 3 decades, especially in that era, without being at least somewhat notable". It's a wild assertion, an article of faith, a hope, a wish. It's the kind of speculation you can find anywhere on Wikipedia every day. If it were a real criterion rather than a magic wand, nothing would ever get done.
Vmavanti (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:5P5, one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia is that Wikipedia has no firm rules. The rules are there because they are generally very useful, but I don't think it's selfish or irresponsible to recognize that they don't work perfectly in every situation. That is why the WP:IAR-abg guide says "Since Wikipedia is consensus, think of [ignore all rules] as Wikipedia's jury nullification." It is also why the WP:Understanding IAR page says "even when a rule does have wide support, there may not be support for applying it in a specific case. Editors are always free to consider ways of doing things other than what the rules specify." Cheers, Ikjbagl (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except that people get banned from Wikipedia. They get treated badly. So there are rules here. Some are followed very very strictly and seriously to the point where you can't even speak freely. Scary stuff. To think otherwise, to pretend otherwise, is to engage in make believe. Harry Potter fairly tale nonsense. One tries to hold in mind two contradictory ideas, Rules and No Rules, without trying to resolve the obvious cognitive dissonance. That kind of thing is for children and for people with agendas. I think Wikipedia works best when it is written by adults who lack agendas and who can try to be impartial.
Vmavanti (talk) 23:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure what "Shellac 78 record era company" has to do with this company, which is reported to have existed from 1949 to 1978 -- that is, it started one year after the vinyl LP record was introduced, and continued for 19 years after 78s ceased production in the U.S. (They may have started out releasing 78s, but the majority of their history was after 78s were obsolete.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the sources cited by User:Ikjbagl above seem to be more focused on the New Orleans Record Shop, a retail store which apparently was operated by the same person as this record label, than on the record label itself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since this is an organization/company, the appropriate guidelines are WP:NCORP. I've been involved in AfD discussions previously involving allowing notability of record labels based on the significance of their signings/releases but nothing happened and nothing changed. Therefore, since notability is not inherited and none of the references are significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, therefore references fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and comment only. It is very difficult to search for information about this label, because it is rather unfortunately named, and 99.98% of search results on "New Orleans Records" have nothing to do with this entity. However, searching "Orin Blackstone" yields more positive results... but not a lot more for this label. Now, obscure 78rpm labels such as this are a specialty of mine, but I've gotta admit in decades of collecting I've not come across this label as a 78rpm. Are we certain all "New Orleans Records" up to 1978 are related to Blackstone? This is where wp:v becomes very important, and we don't have that. I have access to most issues of Record Research magazine, and there's no mention of the label in there. Other possible sources are Joslin's Jazz Journal, the IAJRC Journal, and the JEMF Foundation. None of which are online, of course. What ought to happen is an article on Blackstone is created (he meets GNG, he was a pioneer on discography, preceding Rust), and the information should include the Record Store (probably notable) and this record label (what verifiable information there is), and this should then redirect to Blackstone. I'm not !voting, because I have too many projects going on as is and will probably never get to it, and such an obscure ask of other editors is not likely feasible. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- The difficulties in sourcing seem currently to be insurmountable, which makes getting an article that meets WP:V highly unlikely. When and if we can turn up enough sources to unambiguously identify the subject we can revisit the issue. Reyk _YO! 16:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've been able to add several sources about the label itself and its history. After Blackstone's shop closed and he returned to newspaper editing, the label was revived in 1972 by the jazz trmupeter Clive Wilson. I'm sure there are more sources out there, but it would require library research. Unfortunately the 1978 issue of The Second Line containing an article which discusses several more NOR recordings is missing from their archive. Even so, a record company with this length of history and the number of notable musicians who recorded for it should have an article. Voceditenore (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Several". Go ahead and list the number of sources you added. We can take it. But don't say "numerous". I'm still trying to figure out how many there are in a "numerous". I know "couple" usually means two and "few" usually means three, but "several" and "numerous" take us up into the clouds because they are abstractions, nearly meaningless, inviting speculation. When you say "should have an article", that's an opinion. Based on what? Based on the your affection for the subject? If so, that's not a good enough reason. You say, "I'm sure there are more sources out there", but it's precise to say "I think" when you don't know. If you are "sure", i.e. certain, then were are they? Opinion morphs easily into fact when one fails to be impartial. Word choice often gives the game away.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2020 (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.