Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Wheel Recreation

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Big Wheel Recreation

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Big Wheel Recreation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability criteria failure. Lots of one sentence trivial mention in numerous CMJ magazines, and other mentions elsewhere like "Many emo bands of the late 90s signed to indie labels including Jade Tree Records, Saddle Creek, and Big Wheel Recreation." but sources that satisfy ORGDEPTH not found. Graywalls (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Entertainment, Organizations, Companies, and Massachusetts. Graywalls (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
• Delete - There are a lot of mentions but they are all associated with the musicians and/or music, not in-depth about the label itself. I cannot find anything meeting WP:ORGCRIT in Google Search, News, Books, or Newspapers.com. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
• Keep Probably the most significant label yet to be AfD'ed in the recent bumper crop of NCORP-motivated deletions (at least as far as I've been made aware), this label had literally dozens of noteworthy signees and its output was routinely reviewed in independent music rags for more or less the label's entire run. This is a perfect object lesson for why NCORP is a Procrustean bed for labels, and is actively harming depth of coverage in music; without this article providing a node for hyperlinking, how do we note the connective tissue between these bands (which meet WP:MUSIC on their own without relying on the notability of the label itself)? I can note a little coverage in depth of the label itself, but this is missing the wider issue of what we are trying to accomplish in having articles about independent labels at all; this is a label that made significant and lasting impacts on musical culture, and that is the proper subject of an encyclopedia article. This isn't a functioning label and so there aren't promotional concerns; there are no verifiability concerns; why is the encyclopedia better by losing the article? If the rules say we have to, we still don't have to. Chubbles (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment this is a label that made significant and lasting impacts on musical culture then prove it. Provide widely circulated mainstream citation that corroborates the supposed significant and lasting impact on culture. As an example, PBS states in their own voice about Thomas Edison: Edison invented or refined devices that made a profound impact on how people lived. Now, let's see something of equal caliber crediting Big Wheel Recreation for making a profound impact on music culture. Graywalls (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

You yourself noted that BWR's output received routine coverage in CMJ; as one can find in Google Books, there is issue after issue after issue, year after year, covering their releases. That's a strong indicator of significance, and we should not turn a blind eye to its existence. Of course, there is no such PBS article, and this label does not meet NCORP; aside from major labels, I doubt more than a handful of the thousands of labels with articles do, because they were never made to and because people who edit in music never had the thought to apply it to them, any more than they would have applied it to bands (which, I have noted before, absolutely are corporations). Chubbles (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Existence doesn't mean notability unfortunately. While there are many mentions, it is about the releases or the musicians, not about the label. A "strong indicator of significance" is also not "significance." --CNMall41 (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

One can assert importance of their own family and claim their clan is profoundly important to modern civilization and the author may sincerely hold this belief. However, personally held belief that something is important when there's no general consensus as being an improvement is not a good situation to invoke WP:IAR. Graywalls (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

This is degenerating into straw-man territory. I've had this conversation with the nominator several times already and am well aware that his WP:HEY standard is beyond what 99% of the articles on independent labels can provide. So I'll just say that the criterion he claims is necessary for inclusion is neither required nor helpful to encyclopedically covering music on the site. Chubbles (talk) 06:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome to propose a modification of notability policy over at Village Pump or other recognized forum to formally gather consensus and get the notability requirements change for record labels. For now, can you drop three sources that raises this company to meet NCORP? Notability requires verifiable evidence. Graywalls (talk) 06:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• Delete unless an editor can provide references to significant coverage of this record label in independent, reliable sources. Record labels are not exempt from WP:NCORP and shouldn't be. Cullen328 (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Delete I can only find something in the Athletic of all places [1], but that's not enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  And this in the Harvard newspaper [2]. That isn't usually used for notability purposes. We have like one and a half sources. Oaktree b (talk) 02:19, 22 August 2023 (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.