Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Touring label

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 19:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Touring label

Branding term being promoted as generic -- basically advertising/vanity. Term has no relevant google hits prior to the Wikipedia article. Fails WP:OR, WP:V. Dhartung | Talk 08:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and protologism. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep but would like to edit... I am the AUTHOR of this article, and I would prefer to disclose that I also have a vested interest in this topic. I do think I see what was missing from this article that made it appear as branding, or advertising/vanity. What's odd is that my goal was to subdue any information that wasn't directly germane to the topic (i.e. too much company info)....

A tour label - even though it is this company that frame-worked the business model and first applied it - is a business model/structure unique to anything else in the industry, and one that is proving itself as a viable contender as the structural mechanism that supports this kind of art in this culture. That being said, I do believe that there is a growing reference base for this topic that can be the basis for proper cites on this article.

I believe that if I edited in the missing data that shows the precise dynamics of this structure, most would agree this entry is not simple brandizing or an issue of vanity or advertising. As a matter of fact, I opted to leave the company website out just to avoid such an appearance. I would even be happy to see any information related to the company edited out until such time someone other than myself edits it back in with references.

I also see how the article, as is, would appear on the surface as protologism (love the irony behind that word, btw). However, I am confident the word is now being used by outside sources to describe this business model. On the surface, it is such a random hybrid of structural elements, that there is literally no other way of conveying this concept without using this term - unless you want to spend thirty minutes describing the internal/external dynamics involved. You can say, "like this" or "like that" all day long, but what people seem to be calling this is "tour label," despite the fact that the original term coined by the founder of the company was "touring label." AGAIN, I would love to have the chance to work on my cites and edit in content that meets wikipedia standards for its entries.

In a research forum such as this, it’s a fine line we walk… between sharing information related to things we know and are a part of, and using such discussion as a platform for self aggrandizement. I was hoping to stay on the right side of that line. Please accept my apologies for any appearance that I had not, or was not intending to. I’m currently kicking myself for not using better cites on this all around... that would have likely avoided the extra process.

I admit that I may have had a shaky understanding at first of the cite requirements before the nominee brought this to my attention, but I would like to work more on this article as I believe that when it meets specs it will be quite valuable as part of this online reference – definitely not just some vanity piece.69.235.39.40 08:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It was pretty clear that the author was self-interested, with a username incorporating the company identity. What we are looking for is evidence of, as you say, outside sources who are also using the business model, called by this term or any other, as documented in reliable third-party sources such as trade industry magazines or even better general-interest publications including newspapers. Otherwise we have no proof that what you're saying about your own company's business model has any application to anybody else. Citations have another purpose in that they demonstrate the notability of a topic, by having been written about.

That said, we do thank you for your constructive attitude toward this situation. It isn't our intent to discourage anyone from editing Wikipedia, only to maintain the overall quality of the project and enforce legal guidelines. --Dhartung | Talk 08:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Per nom, author has not provided any sources/references after several days and Ghits not encouraging. Wickethewok 17:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unreferenced neologism. ~ trialsanderrors 02:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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.