Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Topshelf 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 no consensus. Seems like this topic is exactly on the edge between having enough and not enough WP:SIGCOV coverage, judging by the last three commenters. Thus no consensus Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Topshelf 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)

No significant mention in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG, many of the bands linked here are depending on this article as a POS, could be a case of circular notability if i'm right about this nomination. Daiyusha (talk) 06:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Topshelf is fairly new, it's true, but its roster quickly gained a significant amount of chart attention and press. It has plenty of acts that do not need to rely solely on recording for a notable label to establish their notability - among them Pianos Become the Teeth, The Jazz June, Sorority Noise, Lite, The Velvet Teen, The World Is a Beautiful Place & I Am No Longer Afraid to Die, Chamberlain, and You, Me, and Everyone We Know. The label has even gotten some press attention of its own - [1] (Pittsburgh City Paper), [2] (San Diego Reader). Chubbles (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. Although the label has signed notable acts, that notability is not transferable. I am unable to locate references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. As such, this topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC) Change to Draftify as per comment below. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Article Creator) - Coverage in Pitchfork, San Diego CityBeat, Arena Music, Punktastic, can be added to the article.
- Comment "Coverage" is not, on its own, enough to meet the criteria for notability. The coverage must also be significant and independent. None of those references meets the criteria for establishing notability. The Pitchfork reference is a mere mention-in-passing, essentially saying they've had a breakthrough year but providing no other information on the company itself but comments on the success of various artists and albums, fails WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:SIGCOV. The Arena reference is entirely based on an interview with the company and it therefore not independent coverage and fails WP:ORGIND. The Punktastic reference is also entirely based on an interview, likewise fails WP:ORGIND. Finally the San Diego CityBeat reference is based on an announcement and also fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The above comment is claiming that standard music journalism doesn't count toward the GNG - these are sources we have in the past uncontroversially accepted as counting towards notability. Pitchfork is an RS and is discussing a compilation put out by the label of the label's own artists, focused on the label's output; the City Beat article is in a standard alt-weekly and is independently reported; the interviews are in-depth and do not fail to count as independent merely because they are interviews. That's six - six!! independent sources for an indie rock record label on top of it meeting WP:MUSIC's definition of one of the more important indie labels. We should be so lucky as to have this level of coverage for every notable label! Chubbles (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nope. The above comment is claiming that the references do not meet the criteria for establishing notability and then explains why those sources fail. The criteria are explained in WP:NCORP. Your reasoning appears to miss the point. You say that Pitchfork is an RS. Good, but that on its own is not enough. You say the article discusses "a compilation put out by the label's own artist". Fine, but notability isn't inherited and the article says nothing about the company itself, the topic of the article. Articles that rely on interviews are not considered independent. I could go on but you get the point. You appear to misinterpret the meaning of "independent" in the context of notability. The "content" is not independent (e.g. interviews) although the publication is all explained in detail at WP:ORGIND. The criteria isn't WP:MUSIC since we're not talking about a band, etc, but a corporation so we look at WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep A quick search finds these passable sources: [[3]], [[4]]. [[5]], [[6]], and along with the acts they've signed, just pushes this into weak keep territory for me. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The first is based almost entirely on quotations and information provided at an interview, fails WP:ORGIND. The second is a mention-in-passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The third ... I think this one is weak but does enough to meet the criteria for establishing notability. A topic needs two references though. I'll change my !vote to draftify based on this reference and Britishfinance comments below. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Per Timtempleton. these are good coverage but in Tier #2 RS, and thus borderline. I have sympathy with the nom but I would give it a keep for now, and see if someone can improve the article and add these references; noting that the company is also still very active. Otherwise, in this condition, it will probably return to AfD again. Britishfinance (talk) 09:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hi Britishfinance, you seem to be kinda halfway saying that in the current form, the article doesn't meet the criteria. Can I suggest that we perhaps Draftify the article to give the active editors a chance to improve it and find sources, etc? I believe the third reference of Tim's above is good. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hi HighKing, I wouldn't "draftify" an article to add references/improve notability; I would only "draftify" where there are no references, and therefore the article could mean anything. The current references do at least prove what the subject is, and I think this AfD believes that the article should be in the mainspace. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 09:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have added these refs to the article now. Britishfinance (talk) 09:31, 6 June 2019 (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.