Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doublemoon

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. WP:NPASR Stifle (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doublemoon[edit]

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

Non-notable record label/company. Was initially a 1 line stub until user 'Doublemoon' wrote the remainder of the article between 2007-09. No independent sources. No WP article exists on Turkish WP for Doublemoon or its parent company. I can find no significant online coverage that isn't a mirror of the English WP article. NB all the signed artists are non-notable and/or self-cited. Sionk (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i'd say keep... their catalog may be niché, but it certainly is pretty impressive. Candymoan (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you could explain why the list makes Doublemoon notable. Organisations and companies need to have significant coverage in reliable sources to be notable. Sionk (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Try clicking the · books · link in the findsources template, or indeed the · news · one. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read them, Anonymous IP? They are generally brief mentions in relation to information about music artists. I'm not sure whether half a paragraph in a 200 page book is significant coverage. Sionk (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you specify what "half a paragraph" you are referring to, since it isn't the three grafs in Global Beat Fusion [1] or the four in Music and Solidarity [2] or much of the essay on Aziza A.'s "Outro" (from Kindi Dunyam) in New Perspectives on Turkey Volume 3, Issue 1 (pp. 212–226), or perhaps it's on one of the 5 pages mentioning the label in The Rough Guide to World Music: Africa & Middle East? Do you think any of these perhaps indicate notability? Would you like to correct your statement that this was a 1-line stub before User:Doublemoon?[3] Would you like to correct your statement that there are "No independent sources"? Do you withdraw the statement that you "can find no significant online coverage that isn't a mirror of the English WP article"? Are all the acts still non-notable in your view? Shall we look next at the news sources, or stay with books? 86.44.31.213 (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've no axe to grind against Doublemoon. As you have probably seen, I've developed the article about one of their acts, Baba Zula which probably tips them in favour of 'notability'. I come from the point of view that commercial companies need to demonstrate notability beyond brief mentions in relation to their products.

As for your points, you are nit-picking about when and whether Doublemoon was a one-line stub - an anonymous IP (registered in Instanbul) expanded the sentence and added a list a few days before user 'Doublemoon' got stuck in. Re: the book coverage - Music and Solidarity is probably the best coverage but it is one half-para comprising a quote from Doublemoon's website and (after a general para about Istanbul's music scene) a list of some of the artists on Doublemoon's label. Global Beat Fusion has a good two-sentence summary of Doublemoon, as a conclusion to several para's about artist 'Dede'. As for the alleged 5 mentions of Doublemoon in TRGtWM, judging by the Google books search, they are literally only mentions of the name. Ultimately it will be up to a non-involved WP editor to make a judgement about all of this. I've said all I'm going to say. All the best! Sionk (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your assessment of two sources is barely literate. The "alleged" 5 mentions in another are, you find, actual. We still don't know which source had "half a paragraph". You refuse to step back from statements about sources and artists which are demonstrably false and you are now refusing to even look at news sources. Since you've said all you're going to say, we must be free to disregard your views, which will not change on any evidence. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If some notability is to be demonstrated, it is most likely by finding references for the claims in the "Doublemoon has received a number of accolades..." paragraph. I added one BBC ref and flagged the claim which would be particularly strong if referenced. AllyD (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief. Here's the first news result, in Milliyet.[4] Google Translate[5] It's one of many. Here's the second google scholar result.[6] Read the abstract. 86.44.31.8 (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:47, 20 January 2012 (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.