Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric Buffalo 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. Nobody has produced any sufficient evidence to not delete the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Buffalo 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)

This was a redirect to the Cornell radio station until Dalvago (a user with a conflict of interest) converted it into an article. The record label is quite simply not notable. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I gain absolutely nothing from this Wikipedia page being created. I never worked with the label, and even if I did/had, I would not gain a single dollar from it (the label is unpaid volunteer-run, as the article says). Just because you personally do not find it notable, does not mean it is not under Wikipedia standards. I have followed all notability and credibility guidelines and made sure of it.

Please refrain from this seemingly personal vendetta making you revert/delete every article and edit I make. Dalvago (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dalvago Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I think the only edits I have made on any article that you have edited were both on Electric Buffalo Records, the first to restore the redirect and the second to start this deletion discussion when you reverted me. There is nothing personal in my actions. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In WP:MUSIC's words, this is not an important indie label - one with "a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable". It has only one artist that seems to pass notability muster, and only after leaving the label. The article is sourced largely from social media sites, primary sources, and the Cornell Daily Sun, which is not independent; I'd change my vote if we found more sources from third-party media outlets outside of Ithaca, NY. Chubbles (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chubbles I appreciate your feedback and the note from WP:Music, but what you are citing is actually referring to artist notability, not that of a record label. See the section you quoted here. The article does not give criteria for record labels, only for artists and ensembles.

To your second point, The Cornell Daily Sun is actually fully independent from both Cornell and any student organization. (It quite literally says so right on their website homepage banner.) Plus, I didn't cite only the Cornell Daily Sun, I cited the Ithaca Times, and Ithaca Journal, as well as 14850.com. I agree that the label is not greatly notable outside of Tompkins County, but that is not criteria for not being deserving of coverage on Wikipedia.Dalvago (talk) 05:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've argued in the past that WP:MUSIC have explicit criteria for labels, and they were almost implemented; I should probably resurrect that Titanic some time. In the absence of specific guidance, that current language is the best we have, and it also captures the spirit of why we'd ever want to cover a record label in the first place (if it doesn't release any noteworthy music, it's hard to argue that it deserves encyclopedic coverage). I see why you're making that argument about the Daily Sun, and I'm considering whether I'm unfairly judging it; it does seem to have a decidedly campus-based focus, and while Cornell certainly is a prestigious school, I don't know that any campus newspaper substantially demonstrates that campus-based news is noteworthy, because campus newspapers more or less exist to cover even the minutiae of quad life. I'd like to hear from other editors on the merits of that claim. So, the best argument I think you're making here is akin to WP:MUSIC bullet 7, that the label is a significant representative voice of the musical life of a city or region. The Ithaca Journal piece is a WP:MILL music listing, not a spotlight on an EBR artist or the label itself; I wouldn't count it as a substantial independent source. The 14850 one is closer, but that's really more about how about 50 local artists are on Bandcamp; i'm on the fence about that. The Ithaca Times piece is substantial, although it's honestly not very informative (the label was very new at the time and the interview gives a lot of boilerplate about artist success). I'm open to the idea of extending bullet 7 to labels, but I'm just not there with the sourcing I'm seeing, especially with essentially no notable artists (so far). Are there substantial pieces about local musicians signed to the label that indicate how it's changed the musical scene of upstate New York? If we can find those, you'll clear my WP:HEY standard. Chubbles (talk) 07:06, 15 November 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.