Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasp Factory Recordings

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 July 14.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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, due to insufficient significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 07:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasp Factory Recordings

Non-notable label. No reliable sources, only acts seem to be non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 15:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The label, and the strongly associated band / bandmember / head honcho Lee Chaos have been a major fixture in the UK Goth / Industrial scene since the mid-90s. A moment's searching will show this, as their footprint through the net.goth / news:alt.gothic / news:uk.people.gothic is massive. The sheer age of this article is itself indicative of the subject's significance - this isn't just some recent WP vanity page. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This label won the Young Music Professionals Award in 2003 and has had its own entire stage at several major music festivals such as EuroRock, in addition to bands headlining at festivals such as Whitby Gothic Weekend, Convergence and Black Celebration. Their bands have been reviewed favourably, and included on cover-discs/tapes, by major music magazines such as the New Musical Express, Melody Maker and Kerrang!. Wasp Factory Recordings predates blogging culture by about ten years, so most online evidence of its activities will be found on Usenet. I'll try to scan in an old festival programme and edit it so that it can be suitably used as a source whilst remaining fair use. I should also be able to source some quotes. Andrew Oakley (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further evidence: WP:MUSIC states that "A musician or ensemble is notable if it has had some sort of recognition by professional organizations" - met notability as per Young Music Professionals Award; "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable" - met notability for Tarentella Serpentine who did vocals for Sheep On Drugs; "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city" - met notability for Cheltenham & Gloucester through Judder nightclub; etc. etc. etc. The article does need more sources, so perhaps change AFD to WP:VERIFY ? Andrew Oakley (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep - nomination shows unfortunately poor judgement on the part of the nominator, and appears to be part of a mass nomination after people objected to his nomination of DeathBoy. Appears to be a nomination from ignorance. I don't question his good faith, but I do question his judgement in these particular nominations - David Gerard (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm ... DeathBoy was nominated by tomasz. This was nominated by Ten Pound Hammer. Care to explain or retract your comment? --Bardin (talk) 04:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This label is essential to the story of the UK industrial scene. Erstwerst (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article still lacks reliable sources. The award has no indication of notability. It doesn't state who it was from or what it was for. (I removed the reference as it was a press release from wasp factory records). The usenet posts mentions above are not reliable sources. Label does not, in my opinion, have roster of performers, many of which are notable. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting per RyRy's^{[citation needed]} concerns of notability. Good idea, RyRy. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Gross bad faith relisting by Otter chirps and his sockotters. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Several comments to keep by people aware of the label IRL and familiar with that corner of the music scene. Comments to delete by barrrack-room lawyers only interested in wiki power politics and sniping through the obscure corners of the rulebook. None of these editors appear to have any previous interest in or connection with the UK industrial scene. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like Throbbing Gristle and Cabaret Voltaire, so I do have previous interest in the UK Industrial Scene (although I can't speak for anyone else). We are not lawyers, or "snipping through obscure corners in the rulebook". We're using the set guidelines on Wikipedia, and WP:RS and WP:V are not obscure rules. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've reverted bad faith vandalism by Duffbeerforme, who attempted to reduce verifiability by deleting references from the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A change which I clearly stated I had done in my above comment and gave a clear, and I believe valid, reason for. Duffbeerforme (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable sources to indicate notability or provide verifiability. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any realiable sources as one's from the label's website and two are from blogs. Also many of the people voting keep are attacking those who have voted deleted, accusing them of sockpuppetry and other evils. I suggest that they stop being so offended and calm down. Someone mentioned the label being profiled in Melody Maker and New Musical Express. If they had, then please produce them, as they would help your cause. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see no reliable sources (blogs and newsgroups are not reliable in any way), and still stand by my !vote. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

news:alt.gothic / news:uk.people.gothic is a robust primary source for showing the existence of the '90s net.goth movement and the place of Wasp Factory within this this. Google Groups is an adequate, but reliable, secondary archive of this. The fact that everyone on Usenet is insane doesn't change this. You wouldn't trust Usenet to tell you what day of the week it is, but studying Usenet from outside is perfectly reasonable as a way to observe a Usenet-hosted culture in its original environment. This is not only reliable, it's the most reliable way to do it. Access to the primary materials through a reliably objective secondary archive is always going to be better than secondary or tertiary commentary on it. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia relies most heavily on secondary sources; google groups (a forum) cannot be considered a reliable source per WP:RS. News outlets (BBC and NME, for example) would go a bit further toward establishing the claim of notability. Also, sometimes a notable act does not make its label notable - if the label were "at the forefront" of a movement, that should be documented at some reliable source, somewhere independent of the label itself. B.Wind (talk) 04:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google Groups isn't just a forum, it's also a reliable archive of Usenet. Usenet is a forum, but our intention here isn't to use the content of that forum as a source (as I pointed out, everyone on Usenet is insane), rather it's to document the existence on that forum of the pre-web net.goth movement of the '90s. Google Groups is an excellent and reliable source for doing so. Wasp Factory was a significant aspect of that community, both on-line and IRL. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've replied to the previous comment... This article makes no substantive assertion of notability for the label (the fact that a good number of notable acts "have come and gone" from the label does not confer notability on Wasp Factory). In addition, more space is dedicated on the label's unsourced, undated, release list than discussing the workings, history, and business of the label - almost always a bad sign when trying to demonstrate the notability of a record label. Delete for lack of reliable sources in the article showing sufficient independent coverage demonstrating the assertions mentioned above. B.Wind (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notable bands do not imply notable label. My corner Kwik-E-Mart sells such notable producuts as gasoline, Cheez-its and Pepsi, and yet still does not have an article of its own. HiDrNick! 11:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As it stands, the article is reading like an advertisement (i.e. npov), and there doesn't seem to be much information supporting the notability. While there is an interview and a thrid-party bio, it seems quite minimalistic concerning this group. There is a list of releases trying to show impact, but having a mostly red-linked list tends to look awkward under the notability aspect. --Sigma 7 (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't redlinks until the tag-team deleted them. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:21, 13 July 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.