Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lackthereof

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Whilst originally the consensus was heading towards deletion, sources were found part way through the AfD and all comments after that were leaning towards keep, hence the result. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 09:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lackthereof

edit
Lackthereof (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested prod. Rather obviously fails WP:MUSIC and lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party sources. JBsupreme (talk) 07:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response Please use the information in these references to improve the article, or at least list them on the article's talk page so others can do the same and so we here at AfD can peruse them and judge them for independence and reliability, and possibly change our delete votes. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on notability of record labels: Don't take a count of blue-links as an indication of notability - at least one of the links for Barsuk Records was a redirect to an unrelated article before I made it red, and others may be of marginally notable bands. Also, "notability" for the purposes of "2 notable indie labels" is subjective and in my mind at least is a higher bar than being notable enough for the label to have its won Wikipedia article. The key is that the label have several bands on its roster that are beyond mere marginal notability. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the notability of Barsuk Records: Without giving this a hard inspection, this seems notable enough - there's at least one group that's at least a C- or B-list celebrity, and several more which seem to have plenty of third-party references.
  • Comment on the notability of FILMguerrero: Based only on this article, this indie label does not rise to the level of Barsuk Records and in my subjective opinion, does not appear notable enough to count as a "notable indie label" for the purposes of making Lackthereof notable. It is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article though. If there is more to FILMguerro than is evident in the article, please improve that article and post a message on my talk page so I can reconsider. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment why I'm still saying delete: I see comments above that support notability, but I'm only convinced the criteria is halfway-met. I would be much more impressed if the article was improved - I've been known to vote "keep" in AfDs on articles that don't quite meet notability guidelines but are well-written enough to meet or nearly meet B-class quality. Look at articles by other artists in Barsuk's stable, such as They Might Be Giants or Mates of State for examples. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I've never seen an AfD that states "Article's subject is notable, but the article is of WP:POOR QUALITY." That's because the subject is either notable or it isn't, and the quality of the article oughtn't enter into it, at least in the AfD process. I don't know anything about Lackthereof, but it was obvious to me when I saw that it was proposed for deletion that the subject was of at least questionable notability on the face of it, and a few seconds of investigation confirmed that they are almost certainly notable to Wikipedia's standards, especially since as a general rule editors are supposed to err on the side of keep. Because it was so easy to verify notability, it just seems like you (and a few others) have some sort of POV against the subject. Ultimately, I'm not interested in impressing you, I'm interested in seeing that you stop wasting other editors time with frivolous proposed deletions by giving them a hard time with respect to your own made-up guidelines. —  X  S  G  21:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, that was a little harsher than you deserved, seeing as you weren't the one who put this up for deletion. You were the one to add a message to my talk page, challenging me to prove notability to your own "subjective" standards, however, which is ultimately where my frustration comes from. This is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be like. If I were a novice editor, I would have considered that as tantamount to a WP:BITE. —  X  S  G  21:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response to XSG just to clarify: Until I read Paul's references, I was convinced that this subject did not meet notability requirements. However, WP:GOODQUALITY is sometimes enough to make me change a delete to a neutral or keep in a borderline case. Now that I've read Paul's links it's become clear that the subject is notable enough to warrant an article. It's not the case here by a longshot, but I have seen articles on barely-wiki-notable subjects deleted in AfD with a recommendation to WP:STARTOVER. This usually happens when the article is of such poor quality that it's deemed unsalvagable, AND there are items in the edit history that warrant deletion, such as copyright violations, BLP violations, or other things that typically trigger speedy deletions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Notability of indie labels, or more accurately, importance of them, is not crystal-clear in WP:Notability (music). There is room for subjective judgments. Criteria #5 for musicians and ensembles says the artist Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). It's up to each editor to determine what "a few years," "roster of performers," and "many of which are notable" mean. As a general statement on indie labels: Given that there are any number of non-notable artists with Wikipedia articles, an indie label with a dozen artists with blue-links on its Wikipedia page doesn't automatically qualify: The bands behind those blue links must be researched to make sure that at least a few are really notable before the label can be considered "one of the more important indie labels." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-speedy keep based on the references found by User:Paul Erik and their contents as applied to the general notability guideline plus near-compliance with the Music notability guideline. Even those editors who say the music guideline supersedes the general guideline for musicians should consider that when the music guideline is almost met but the person meets the general guidelines, the benefit of the doubt is probably in order. The content in some of Erik's references really needs to be added to the article. Part of what AfDs are for is to get articles improved. XSG, Paul Erik and Ilikepie2221: I challenge you to make some improvements to this article by the time this AfD is over and raise this article to B-class or higher by the end of October. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Paul Erik's sources. - Icewedge (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lackthereof&oldid=1265587974"