Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Underwolf 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Underwolf Records

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable record company lacking GHITs and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY. It look as if the artists have gotten some critical notice, but I do not see any coverage for the company.reddogsix (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* WP:JAZZ notified. AllyD (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Underwolf Records has received coverage in the major international jazz magazine, Jazz & Tzaz, as part of a larger article. In addition, Underwolf's recordings have been featured in very prominent 'best of' lists, and in articles and reviews in important jazz publications such as the leading jazz website All About Jazz, and the New York City Jazz Record among others. The word 'Underwolf' or 'Underwolf Records' appears conspicuously with album cover photos and within the articles in these major publications, further establishing notability for the company of a sort that is not 'inherited' simply by association with notable artists who have received "critical notice". In these cases, the label too has received this notice. Additionally, the company has produced high profile concerts in some of New York City's foremost venues, which have been publicized by publications like Time Out New York among many others, and credited to the record label. This label has the necessary press coverage to be in accordance with Wikipedia's rule that notability requires significant coverage, which is defined by Wikipedia as "more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]" Ant Harness (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ant Harness, while I can appreciate the effort you expended to create the article, the subject simply does not appear to meet the criteria for Wikipedia's guidelines for notability (WP:GNG). There is also a specific criteria for coverage of companies (WP:CORPDEPTH) and I would venture to suggest it doesn't meet those either. Notability requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". There is just no way that Underwolf Records has received significant coverage. Passing mentions, yes. One-off notation, eg."(Underwolf Records)", yes. But these are both a long way from "significant coverage". Most of the sources provided are one-off mentions of the name (sometimes just "Underwolf", without even "Records" after it). A couple don't mention the company at all.

The one source you cite as providing significant coverage (at least for me) couldn't be opened properly and is just a front-cover. Regardless, one solitary source cannot possible be considered "significant coverage" or even "sources" (plural), even if the subject were the focus of one of the articles (though given the company doesn't appear on the front cover, this would have to be queried). The company does not inherit notability from its stable of artists or their recordings. In fact, the guidelines address this specifically - "not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable; not every organization to which a notable person belongs [...] is itself notable". Nor does the company inherit notability from an event it has helped to organise. Sorry, but unless someone can produce some reliable sources that give significant coverage to the organisation itself, it is going to struggle to meet WP:GNG. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Ant Harness (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Supplied sourcing represents one-off mentions (frankly, one-word mentions) in articles covering topics that are distinct from the subject. Stalwart makes the salient points regarding corporate notability not necessarily being inherited from having notable products, and that absolutely appears to be the case here. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Stalwart111. The list of references provided are unfortunately, the most trivial of trivial coverage. The vast majority of them are not about the subject at hand, but merely list the company's name in relation to other subjects. This is not signifigant coverage and does not fulfil the notability requirements for companies. Searching for additional searches has come up with nothing new for me. Rorshacma (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2012 (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.