Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebullition 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 delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ebullition 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)

Fails to meet WP:NCORP as a distribution business/record label. Having notable bands pumped through is not an assumption of notability per WP:INHERITORG. Just like a lot of corner stores, dry cleaners, small factories and what not that existed for decades that are only notable within the small local community, this is only notable in the niche community and is not sufficiently notable for a wiki article. Graywalls (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the more important independent labels of the 1990s (in the sense suggested by WP:MUSIC), and the publisher of HeartattacK, maybe the third-most-important indie punk magazine after Maximum RocknRoll and Punk Planet. This is the label that released Fuel's, Orchid's, and Reversal of Man's albums, and others to boot. Ghettoblaster magazine called them "legendary" ([1]), and the book Punk Record Labels by Alan O'Connor gives valuable context about the label's place in 90s-era DIY punk. Our coverage of hardcore is incomplete without it. Chubbles (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment you name dropped bands. Association with these bands doesn't cause the company to inherit notability and this is what WP:INHERITORG means. An opinion statement of "legendary" by a magazine, doesn't count towards WP:SIRS. I looked at NMUSIC again and I'm seeing nothing saying recording companies and record labels should be evaluated according to NMUSIC criteria over NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That completely misses the point of NOTINHERITED. Record labels literally do one thing - they release music by musicians. They are of encyclopedic interest only insofar as that music is of encyclopedic interest. WP:MUSIC suggests a definition of an important indie label, and since this is a musical topic, we should look to guidelines created by musical subject experts to evaluate it. There's no necessary reason why we would use NCORP, nor even a good reason to do so, when we have subject-specific guidance - any more than we would use NCORP to evaluate a band (even though, were they not specifically excluded from NCORP, bands would unquestionably fall under its purview). Chubbles (talk) 11:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely disagree. Publishers publish books by authors. Galleries exhibit art by artists. Those things too are bound by NCORP/NORG. Record labels is similar. Run your argument past other editors at WT:Notability#Appropriate_SNG_for_record_labels/recording_companies. Graywalls (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would you agree that WP:MUSIC (and, by extension, the lede of NCORP) should be modified so that bands and musical ensembles should fall under NCORP, as "a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose"? Chubbles (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Happy to be proven wrong, but don't see a lot of coverage--and I say that as someone who owned a lot of these seven inches and who read the zine. I found this article interesting, but, since a Kent McClard article exists, perhaps it's not totally necessary. I don't think anything Chubbles wrote is incorrect; I just didn't find enough sources (through ProQuest, so far). I do disagree with part of Graywalls's argument: hardcore punk culture is, of course, of interest throughout the world. Caro7200 (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that this business entity is not of adequate general interest, just as local meat repacking plant with local presence isn't even if they process packaging for companies like Tyson and Hormel. Graywalls (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that ProQuest is the best place to look for sources (though, of course, if there were a lot there, it would move strongly in Ebullition's favor); 1990s-era punk zines other than HeartattacK are going to be much better guides. Chubbles (talk) 11:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it was just the database I chose after doing a Google search. I agree that coverage may be mostly in books about punk culture or zines. I remember one book titled Fucked Up and Photocopied... I just haven't found anything beyond a line here or there. I also agree that it doesn't make sense to apply WP:NCORP to record labels, or to try to divorce them from their artists. Caro7200 (talk) 13:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Side question - is the !vote for delete something chosen over and above, say, a merger proposal? You note the existence of McClard's article, but a deletion here makes a redlink, which makes it impossible to connect the bands on the label to each other. I'm not necessarily opposed in general to merging label and label-owner articles, though in this case I think the information is better suited to the label article than the man's article (his label and publishing output gets more notice than he himself ever did). Chubbles (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a merger works--and I always prefer that the BLP be the one "to go." Caro7200 (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chubbles:, why do you believe zines are acceptable sources? I don't believe zines qualify as WP:RS, especially not for establishing notability. See this description. "For the uninitiated, zines are small-run, self-published works that span genres". So, this fails WP:SPS, and the "reliably published" requirements for sourcing. while I was quite sure NCORP is the appropriate bar to be met, I checked with others just to be sure. Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Appropriate_SNG_for_record_labels/recording_companies Graywalls (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we're talking about basement zine productions, then yes. But publications like Maximum Rocknroll and Punk Planet, which I refer to here perhaps too loosely as "zines", actually had editorial control and weren't SPS in the way Wikipedia uses the term. They would be first-call sources for information on music of the sort Ebullition released. Chubbles (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this was "more inportant" for a decade, we would have multiple reliable sources covering it. We need sources, not empty assertions of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — NCORP is simply not met, there are insufficient coverage in RS. Celestina007 (talk) 16:38, 15 April 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.