Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ripple Music

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 no consensus. What an absolute mess, to be honest. There is a handful of policy-based arguments in amongst a heck of a lot of very average arguments below. I can't find a consensus at all, plus the article has changed somewhat during the debate, making it even harder. Would recommend that, if this is relisted in the near future, the nominator requests that the debate be semi-protected and then widely advertised internally (Wikiprojects etc.) to encourage good-quality contributions to the debate. Daniel (talk) 11:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ripple Music

[edit]

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

Ripple Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only references listed in this article are links to the company's personal webpage/blogs/store and a link to a music festival's webpage. Cannot find references that sufficiently establish notability, therefore the article should be deleted per WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. Law15outof48 (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Law15outof48 (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While there were quality issues with the original article, Ripple Music is a notable record label in the doom metal subculture. The article has been revised to include reliable, independent references and some promotional language has been removed. View the current version: Ripple Music Jessiemay1984 (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ORGCRIT: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." This company has not been the subject of significant coverage in any of those sources. This article should still be deleted. Law15outof48 (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ORGCRIT: Updated references include well-known music publications such as Rolling Stone, Decibel Magazine, and Blabbermouth, as well as local mainstream news sources and popular underground publication The Obelisk. All of these are independent of the organization.Jessiemay1984 (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 23:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as subculturally notable music label. In addition to WP:SURMOUNTABLE and WP:DINC, keep in mind that small subcultures (such as specific metal subgenres) may have little coverage that looks relevant to an outsider looking in, but this doesn't necessarily mean they lack that coverage entirely -- it simply may require more familiarity to spot. The improvements to sourcing this article has seen since listing appear quite clearly reliable coverage. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Decibel source might constitute significant coverage in a relible source, but all of the other sources listed are either not reliable or only contain trivial mentions of the company. WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS: Lack of notability supercedes WP:SURMOUNTABLE and WP:DINC. The article should still be deleted. Law15outof48 (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there have been significant updates to the page in recent days. It seems worth keeping as a few valuable new links have been added. And I can agree that yes, this is an important label in the underground rock community. Grimbold292 (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepstrike double !vote Updates to the information and references are ongoing. Re sources that are "not reliable" -- some references are from The Obelisk has its own (uncontested) Wikipedia page. Other references include Rolling Stone, Blabbermouth, Ghost Cult Magazine, and long-running underground metal sites such as The Sludgelord and Encyclopaedia Metallum. It appears that the call for deletion stems from a lack of familiarity with this particular metal subculture, especially given the updated references. Furthermore, keep in mind that a record label's purpose is to release and distribute music -- so while the organization itself may get less press coverage than the bands/artists it represents, it has a significant role in content creation and audience engagement within its particular subgenre. Ripple has released hundreds of musical works over the past decade in the doom/stoner genres, working with bands around the globe. A flag to improve citations would have been more appropriate for this article than a call for deletion. See, for instance, the Wikipedia pages for Nuclear Blast and Metal Blade Records. 24.45.143.92 (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This was me (Jessie) not signed in. Added strikethrough bc I'm not trying to stuff the ballot box lol. Jessiemay1984 (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial mentions in reliable sources are not sufficient to establish notability. A flag to improve citations doesn't apply to this article, since it hasn't been established that the company is notable in the first place. It appears that your argument boils down to the WP:LOCALFAME and WP:ITSOLD fallacies. Law15outof48 (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP and applies a stricter interpretation of requirements than for other topics. In short, WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. So for a record company, I want to see articles *about* the record company, not about the artists or new releases, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 21:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. Upon closer examination, I agree. None of these sources constitute "significant coverage" whatsoever. Law15outof48 (talk) 03:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see the point about notability for an organization/company -- but in the case of a record label, the WP:MUS should be factored in as well. Furthermore, as some users noted, Ripple's role in an underground subculture may be harder to see from outside that subculture; Also, references from Decibel and others focus on the label itself. As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Record Labels, this article should remain as an important label in the doom/stoner metal subculture.Jessiemay1984 (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LOCALFAME: having a "role in an underground subculture may be harder to see from outside that subculture" does not make the company notable, nor does being a part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Record Labels. WP:MUS does not apply to record labels, and none of this supersedes the company's lack of notability. Law15outof48 (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepstrike double !vote In looking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Labels, I found some interesting discussion about notability and sourcing. It appears that other users have run into similar debates. Here is an excerpt from that section, posted in 2019: "Record labels are not specifically covered with their own section in WP:MUSIC, and there is no consensus about how to do so (I attempted, once, and failed). WP:MUSIC does have language in the section on artists that gives the only real guidance about judging notability - length of operation and significance of roster, taken holistically. [...] There are very few people actively working on record label articles - I'm one of the most active, and most of what I do is watch over a bunch of them to ward off vandalism and overly-hasty deletion, rather than write new articles or work on sourcing." That was from Chubbles. The debate on this Ripple article is a perfect example of how unclear guidelines for record labels results in confusion and clearer guidelines are needed. If we look at "length of operation and significance of roster, taken holistically," Ripple has a significant role in a music subculture. In the spirit of Wikipedia:WikiProject Record Labels, to improve Wikipedia's record label coverage -- rather than deleting one article about a record label that has existed for over ten years and has put out many releases that meet WP:MUSIC notability criteria, perhaps efforts would be better spent on developing notability criteria that is specific to record labels. (Especially as this issue has come up before.)Jessiemay1984 (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You voted twice, Jessiemay1984. Please strike through one of your votes so that it doesn't get counted twice.
  • The guidelines are not unclear. WP:MUS does not apply to record labels, WP:ORGCRIT does. Saying that the page shouldn't be deleted because it and/or the company have been around for a while is the WP:ITSOLD fallacy: "Notability is not established by how long a thing has existed, or how far back in time a tradition may go, or how venerable the people are who are involved in it, or how yellowed the pages that once mentioned it." 'Significance of roster' is the WP:INHERITORG fallacy: "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it." 'Ripple has a clear role in music subculture' is the WP:LOCALFAME fallacy. These fallacies do not sufficiently establish the company's notability. Wikipedia:WikiProject Record Labels are only for companies that have been demonstrated to be notable in the first place, which this company has not. Law15outof48 (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Five pillars -- "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions."Jessiemay1984 (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. This is the most relevant underground record label on the planet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:A:5:0:0:0:15 (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Article describes actively engaged recorded music label, publisher, distributor, and cultural entity in music genre and subgenre operating for over 10 years representing broad roster of active musicians and significant catalog of recordings. Ripple Music is clearly a long standing active entity on AllMusic. Ripple Music is clearly a long standing active entity on Discogs.com. WP:MUSIC indicates that many artists in repertoire would meet notable criteria, whether or not they themselves are represented with Wikipedia articles or entries. There is limited discussion indicating how to assess Notability for smaller and independent record labels and music publishers as culturally significant. Wikipedia Notability guidelines should not unintentionally bias toward "major" international corporate entities or certain "major" institutions. Discussion appears to contain Moving Goalposts when presented with notable references by invoking WP:INHERITORG, WP:ITSOLD, & WP:LOCALFAME to refute notability. These can continue to be leveraged to argumentum ad infinitum as invoked here, they would also apply to most genre or regional music organizations that exist to promote culture and artists. The page needs fixing not deletion. Krakan.silfursolin (talk) 09:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amen! We need to improve Wikipedia record label coverage according to Wikipedia:Five Pillars rather than get hung up on circular arguments. Deleting the Ripple page does nothing to improve Wiki's music content, especially as the label's notability is being established through recent reference additions. Jessiemay1984 (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Krakan.silfursolin's account was created recently and their only edits relate to this deletion discussion. jp×g 14:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: That's also the case for the user who flagged this page for deletion. Law15of48's account was created in late December 2020 and most of the activity has been related to this page. 24.45.143.92 (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC) Jessiemay1984 (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2021 (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/Ripple_Music&oldid=1002636059"