Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QStik 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QStik Records[edit]

Music publisher that fails corporate notability. Though the label's bands have received press coverage Qstik has not. I cannot find anything that makes Qstick notable. There is a lack of independant+multiple articles primarily about them (and very fews news articles seem to even mention them).

Previously deleted following an AfD disussion, then recreated and deleted under speedy deletion G4 (recreation). I tagged it for speedy deletion after the second recreation but this is disputed so I'm bringing it here for discussion. Please see the talk page -> Talk:QStik_Records <- for discussion by the articles creator as to it's notability. Peripitus (Talk) 11:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is more than well sourced by this point. The label has a roster with a bunch of notable acts (this is normally enough to establish a label's notability, since independent coverage can be established by the raft of album reviews that the artists get, but the creator of the article has gone well beyond that to include other third-party sourcing). Chubbles 11:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that none of the sources are even about the company - they just mention it in passing. The band's notability does not pass back to the company any more than say Mark Davis's passes back to a company he worked at. Please check the sources as they are only noted (not written about) and their website is even dead - Peripitus (Talk) 12:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Their website being dead means nothing. It could be out of business, for all anyone cares. Labels with a notable list of musicians get multiple independent coverage through the album reviews their musicians get; that's what it means for a record label to have, in the words of WP:CORP, "people independent of the subject itself consider the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." Although WP:CORP is a bad standard to judge labels by (they really should have an independent standard under WP:MUSIC, and the kind of do, under WP:MUSIC point 5 - which Qstik fits), it would even pass, in my opinion, with the awards it's been nominated for. This is not a trivial label. Chubbles 20:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They have not attracted press attention and, if the dead website means their defunct, they will attract none. Point 5 under WP:MUSIC is related to the notability of the Musicians rather than the label. Per Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Notability_is_inherited - the notability of the bands does not imply the label is also, rather it has to be notable in it's own right - Peripitus (Talk) 04:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I am arguing is that the notability of a label is entirely dependent upon the notability of its acts, just as the notability of a musician is entirely dependent upon the notability of the songs/albums they write. If no one pays attention to the songs, the musician is not notable; they become notable as people write about the music they compose. Likewise, a label becomes noteworthy when its musicians attract independent attention. Which I believe is the case here. My line of reasoning is, I think, entirely aside from WP:NOTINHERITED. Chubbles 06:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the argument, however labels like Island Records have attracted press, and other printed, attention themselves which although related to the artists is about the label. With Qstik it appears that noone cares enough to write about them. If there is nothing written about Qstik then we cannot generate a verifyable wikipedia article about them- Peripitus (Talk) 07:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources make brief mention of the label, agree with Peripitus. Cap'n Walker 20:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. WP:MUSIC seems to hint that if a record label has a roster of several notable artists, then the label must be notable too (see Category 5 Records as an example). However, looking at these bands, none of them seem to have charted, and although their articles seem to sport decent sources, I'm not entirely convinced if any of the bands on this label are indeed notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lack of independent sources - nearly all sources are primary - which is a problem under WP:RS. This debate's already been had. Orderinchaos 21:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the only independent source on the article[1] doesnt mention QStik, and searching for online news turns up nothing. There are a few gov.au hits, and I suspect that street rags and industry mags may have a few focus pieces, but they would need to be researched first and often they are not independent. Compare this Jarrah Records who has won the Best WA Based Record Label award for the last two years; a quick search for Jarrah+record+label provides a lot more coverage. John Vandenberg 22:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable label. Keb25 09:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete and salt The editor in question who has recreated the article is well known to members of my local project for his self-promotion activities on the wiki, and to the best of my recollection that the previous AfD for this article took place at the same time as many others that were cleaning house after dan arndt's efforts (sic). I did not participate in the previous AfD, but the fact the article's creator obviously refuses to stand by a community decision causes me to weigh in here. The points raised in both this and the previous AfD went to the issue of notability, and this has not been satisfactorily resolved in any version of the article to date. Further, the inability of many experienced editors including myself being unable to locate any WP:RS to support the claim of notability shows that this article is unlikely to meet the basic standards such as WP:MUSIC. It is a virtually unknown independent label, has no major or minor artists that have achieved reasonable notability. Further to this, the editor in question has seen fit to recreate a number of other articles which were deleted by consensus, which do not seem to be an improvement by any stretch of the imagination over the deleted versions. Salt this article and all reasonable variations of the name, issue the user a stern warning (and maybe find an admin who might consider a block for at least 72hrs), and help him get the message that his actions are out of step with long standing accepted practice here. Thewinchester ^(talk) 15:48, 30 September 2007 (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.