Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plan-It-X Records (2nd nomination)

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 as per consensus and the absence of calls for deletion beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plan-It-X Records

Article has been through AfD a few years ago (and apparently VfD before that), but has no RS documentation to meet WP:V nor any particular assertion that it meets WP:N. Google News search shows only non-RS and trivial RS mentions--unable to find enough to meet inclusion criteria Jclemens (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has sufficient notability to keep, as has been determined numerous times already in previous debates. Artists like Against Me, Kimya Dawson, and Fifteen are extremely influential and readily verifiable by spending 5 seconds on Google. jer the linear (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Please see WP:NOTAGAIN. Your response also doesn't address the verifiability concerns. Jclemens (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NOTAGAIN does discuss not frivolously renominating articles over issues that have been discussed. You have not brought up any arguments that were not addressed adequately previously. There are many reliable third parties that discuss the label, such as the Philadelphia City Paper. Some one appears to have added some sources while we've been discussing this as well. What claims are in dispute, anyway? jer the linear (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nomination is pretty clear: "has no RS documentation to meet WP:V nor any particular assertion that it meets WP:N." What part of meeting V or N is optional? What part of V was met in the last AfD, when at the time of this nomination, there were zero independent reliable sources documenting what the article asserts? If these had been met when I nominated the article, I quite agree that this would have been a frivolous nom. Jclemens (talk) 03:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we've been through this before, and it's hardly become less notable since the last AfD. Clearly satisfies notability, as has been detailed in the past AfD/on the talk page for various Plan-It-X bands SetaLyas (talk) 12:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please indicate which notability guideline you believe this meets and what documentation you believe exists in the article to support this. Again, adding reliable sourcing to the article would help your case greatly. Jclemens (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ee can either use WP:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles or WP:Notability_(music)#Others to determine it's notability. It only needs to meet one of the guidelines listed. For the guidelines listed under musicians and ensembles, #5 discusses major independent labels as one "with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable." Since Kimya Dawson (she did the soundtrack for Juno (movie)), Against Me! (now on Sire Records), Fifteen (band) are all especially notable (again, just to name a few), and the labels been around for 15 years, it satisfies this criteria (as well as #6 on the list). If we're looking at criteria for "Other," it qualifies under #6 "# Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture," as it is often discussed on Maximumrocknroll and Punknews. Though I agree that citation would help, I fail to see how that is grounds for deletion as opposed to grounds for cleanup. jer the linear (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that if those are established through independent reliable sources, that the notability criteria are clearly met. Problem is, the article as was when nominated didn't clearly assert any of that, save perhaps the age, and what was asserted was entirely unsourced. Jclemens (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, cleanup Based on the above discussion, the article is notable and verifyable. Sure, it could use more sources, but those sources definitely exist. Beccaisrockin (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plan-It-X Records is certainly a notable and verifiable record label. As previously mentioned, Kimya Dawson has worked with Plan-It-X Records. She along with two other Plan-It-X artists Matty Pop Chart (Matt Tobey) and Paul Baribeau performed at the Independent Spirit Awards live on channels AMC and IFC [[1]]. Also, Plan-It-X was mentioned in a funny bit of odd news revolving one of its bands This Bike Is a Pipe Bomb [[2]]. While the article may need some clean up, it should definitely not be up again for deletion. Daviddrummer12 (talk) 00:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to what was previously mentioned, Plan-it-x is home to Madeline Adams, who released her first record on Plan-it-X. Madeline is often featured in Flagpole Magazine who have documented her increase in popularity over time and subsequent jump to Orange Twin Records, a label home to other notable bands in independent circles such as Neutral Milk Hotel. Although Flagpole mainly serves the Athens, GA community, it is not sanctioned or funded by the University of Georgia, and subscriptions can be purchased nationwide. This article documents the release of her second album and subsequent tours with other Plan-it-X bands The Door-Keys and Defiance, Ohio. As mentioned earlier, Kimya Dawson appeared both solo and in the Plan-it-X group Antsy Pants on the Grammy Award-winning soudtrack to the major motion picture Juno. Likewise, since signing to Sire Records, Against Me! have had videos circulated on MTV, appeared and performed on shows such as The Late Show with David Letterman and went on tour with multi-platinum band The Foo Fighters. In less than flattering news, Plan-it-X mainstay This Bike is a Pipe Bomb continues to find itself in the news due to their stickers, which some bicycle owners place on their bikes, leading to fear of bomb threats and sometimes panic, but nonetheless making its way to the national [news, multiple times. RankResistance (talk) 00:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This Bike is a Pipe Bomb has their own article, which rightly contains much of this sort of coverage. I've looked at a few such articles, but I find nothing but passing mentions of the label, proving, perhaps that they exist, but not providing any sort of in-depth coverage of the label itself. Is there any RS coverage of the label as a label? I've not found any. Jclemens (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plan-It-X Records is the former home of Against Me!, a band that has garnered national attention and radio play. They now have a record deal with Sire Records. This fact alone should make this article worthwhile. Paintedwall (talk) 03:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The first two paragraphs alone show how notable the page is.Whotookthatguy (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~(already commented "keep" above). This article from Flagpole Magazine touches upon the DIY ethics and community involvement of PIX when discussing it's Plan-it-X Fest bus tour of 2005. As mentioned prior, it is from a national magazine and does explain not only its existence, but also its releases and activities. I think this satisfies its requirements. This review of a Matt and Kim album from the same publication discusses the "Plan-it-X" sound, which, in my opinion, alludes to the fact that there is a distinct influence from the label on larger, more successful artists, which I believe satisfies another one of the requirements.RankResistance (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You already commented "keep" above, so i struck your second keep here so as not to confuse. 86.44.30.176 (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An independent label that has released artists such as Kimya Dawson and Against Me! ought to be notable. 86.44.30.176 (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The guidelines for nominating an article for deletion, seen here at WP:AfD, outlines the following pretty clearly: "Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a 'cleanup' template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." The nominator, based on PIX's edit history and discussion page, has not done this; the AfD tag has been added unfairly hastily. Contributors above have already made great strides in improving this article (especially considering that PIX's ethic works actively against the mainstream sources that Wikipedia is fond of), which a cleanup tag would have handled just as effectively. Nowah Balloon 00:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment By the same token, I should have deleted all the unsourced statements in the article before nominating it for deletion. I thought it less disruptive to nominate it as-is. Rather than pointing fingers at the nominator, it would be far more productive to simply fix the article. If someone would care to lift a finger and include a few more of the sources here into the article itself, I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination. Jclemens (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It feels to me that a citation needed tag would be more appropriate than deleting statements. jer the linear (talk) 02:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a whale of a roster of important musicians. Albums released by this label are reviewed regularly by major press outlets. The label is of clear cultural significance and is thereby of encyclopedic worth. Chubbles (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2009 (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.