Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C/Z Records

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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

C/Z 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)

WP:NCORP failure. Record labels are held to NCORP standards. Sourcing and coverage therefore has to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Graywalls (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, California, and Washington. Graywalls (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - NCORP is one avenue by which a record label can be deemed notable. By precedent, not all editors believe that NCORP is the best standard for record labels in all instances, and this is just such one case. A record label produces art, and is known by their art and artists, and therefore should also be judged based upon the cultural influence it has exerted. It is hard to overstate the cultural impact on Grunge culture of C/Z, as their issue "Deep Six" has been held by several sources to be the start of the grunge movement. The label was highly influential in the careers of several highly notable bands, including Nirvana, Soundgarden, and Melvins. I'm going to list a bunch of links. Some of them are SIGCOV, many are not but demonstrate the label's large influence, but there are at least three sources here that meet NCORP anyway. So it meets the spirit of NMUSIC #5, GNG, and NCORP. [1], [2], [3], [4] (can't see book, but C/Z is in the chapter title, which is highly indicative of substantial coverage), [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. This isn't even nearly the google books search results available. I have not searched newspapers.com or archive.org. Given their prominence in the Pacific NW grunge scene in the early days, it stands to reason there are several non-digitized publications waiting to be discovered that cover the topic.

So all that said, I am concerned about the current state of the article. Much of it fails WP:V. For instance, I originally didn't find that The Presidents of the United States of America (band) recorded for them, but further research indicates that they did (reference is C/Z Records cat# CZ082) 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @78.26:, in the WP:NCORP guidelines, it reads For example, bands are covered by WP:MUSIC. though there's no suggestion to evaluate music related organizations and corporations under NMUSIC, so I am going to assume NMUSIC is largely irrelevant. Of the numerous sources you listed out in your vote, could you tell me which ones you believe meets WP:CORPDEPTH and significant, totally independent, reliable and secondary coverage? A bucket of numerous bits of window glass that adds up to the same weight as a full window can't be presented to equal an intact piece of window. For example, the coverage about C/Z Records in Nirvana FAQ was just a tad more than a mention. Graywalls (talk)

If we are going to use NCORP for labels, why would we not want to use it for bands? Bands, after all, meet, to the T, the definition of the thing that NCORP covers - an association of people organized together for a specific purpose, and indeed, in nearly all cases an explicitly commercial purpose. What makes more sense is that people interested in music should evaluate musical topics, and in fact that is how WP:MUSIC has historically been interpreted. Chubbles (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because, the use of NBAND alternative evaluation criteria has been vetted by broad consensus, which you will see on the talk page for NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By that I take it you mean this discussion from 2007, which is not a broad consensus; it is a quick addition made as an afterthought. It is the only discussion of any depth that I could find on the NCORP talk page. If we are going to apply NCORP consistently, I see no rationale for why it should not also trump WP:MUSIC for bands as well. Chubbles (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Noted that the article could certainly stand improvement esp. in sourcing. However, per above, C/Z was a pretty significant presence in the Seattle grunge scene of the 80s and 90s. Deep Six is the defining compilation album of early grunge, and the label issued early tracks by multiple artists that later became both highly influential and commercially successful e.g. Nirvana, Soundgarden, as well as releases by acts that never became known to a wider audience but were nonetheless highly influential e.g. Skin Yard, the Gits, and/or had members that did achieve wider critical and commercial success with later acts e.g. Green River, Treepeople. I'm trying to be mindful of WP:civility, but I'm finding it hard to believe that anyone with knowledge of alternative music history would support this nomination. CAVincent (talk) 07:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good grief, this label is important. If NCORP dictates we should delete it, we may as well not bother covering independent labels at all. Luckily, people who are interested in music, rather than people who are interested in corporations, usually decide which label articles to keep and which not, and this certainly meets the sense of "one of the more important labels" mentioned in WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 07:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's been some voice to objection to assessment under NCORP and suggesting the use of NMUSIC. I disagree with this objection although I was not sure if there's been previous generally accepted consensus on this. I sought another input just on NCORP vs something else on things like record labels and recording studios. Please see/comment at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Categorization_of_notability_requisite_for_record_labels,_recording_studios,_art_collectives_and_like Graywalls (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notice. I'm approaching my limit of how much time I want to devote to WP tonight but planning to read over and maybe comment further in the next day or two. Cheers. CAVincent (talk) 04:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- - @Graywalls:, don't you think in order to gain broad consensus you should have the conversation at a neutral location and then also notify the NMUSIC people, and perhaps put out a notice at WikiProject Record Labels? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 11:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed on this. Just going to NCORP may be a bit of forum shopping. CAVincent (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - If it makes you feel better, it's been added to NMUSIC discussion as well just now. Graywalls (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NCORP is a useful guideline for ensuring Wikipedia doesn't end up filled with spammy articles serving as adverts for present day corporations. I'm not convinced applying it to a record label that closed in 2001 is appropriate or beneficial to the wiki. The above arguments make a good case for keeping the article. Garuda3 (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I belive as others have said that if this does not meet the letter of NCORP it meets the spirit of WP:NMUSIC#5, WP:GNG, and WP:NCORP. Lightburst (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2023 (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.