Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Get Better 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 keep. Clear consensus to “keep” the article has been established by the community. Furthermore per WP:HEY. Thanks to efforts by AleatoryPonderings. (non-admin closure) Celestina007 11:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Get Better Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable music organization which fails to satisfy WP:NCORP. A before search links me to self published unreliable sources. The current sources in the article read like PR sponsored material(1-3) whilst the remainder mention them in passing without WP:SIGCOV thus doesn’t adhere to WP:ORGCRIT. Perhaps a classic case of WP:TOOSOON. Celestina007 18:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 18:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 18:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 18:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 18:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 18:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I see two sources in the article in respectable publications—Billboard and LA Weekly—both of which have bylines. But I would like to have WP:THREE, hence my keep being weak. I am not sure how one can determine by stylistic analysis alone that a news article in a respectable publication is sponsored content, and I disagree with the nom's reading of these sources. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- @AleatoryPonderings hello, LA Weekly & the Los Angeles Times aren’t one and the same. Although “respected” it hasn’t been vetted by the community to be a reliable source. Furthermore I’m not sure you should trust that particular publication of theirs it reads a lot like a PR sponsored material. And yes, your three argument is also something I put into consideration, theoretically even if the LA weekly source was reliable (which it isn’t), per WP:GNG, we require in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources & just two sources certainly do not constitute what we would classify as sources. You can carry out a before search so you can see what I am seeing, which is; self published sources, user generated sources, press releases, and other unreliable material. At best this might be a case of WP:TOOSOON as a source used in this article refers to them as fast rising. Celestina007 20:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm aware that LA Weekly and the Los Angeles Times are not the same. In my view, both are reliable sources. Of course, others may disagree. But a source needn't be listed at Wikipedia:Perennial sources in order to be considered reliable. Vetting sources for reliability is, AFAIK, one of the primary purposes of AfD, so I don't think it's fair to dismiss LA Weekly as unreliable simply because it hasn't yet been listed as an unambiguously trusted source. FWIW, my searches revealed hits in other publications I'd consider reliable such as Pitchfork. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- AleatoryPonderings, You are very much correct. A source need not be listed at WP:RSP before it is considered reliable & i should also state that I’m not necessarily referring to a LA Weekly as an utter unreliable source however what I’m calling unreliable is that particular publication, as we all know that even reliable sources sometimes publish unreliable material (an example would be a reliable source publishing a sponsored post, in that context it is unreliable). Generally I think my point is that there aren’t enough reliable sources available for this article to be retained at the moment, even to the point that the same source we seem to be in contention of refer to them as “fast rising” which is a nod to WP:TOOSOON. Celestina007 21:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Celestina007, Thanks for your clarification :) Much appreciated! I'll leave it to others to assess the reliability of the LA Weekly article, as well as the others I've recently added. Despite the volume of refs I've dropped in, I think I'm still a weak keep as it would be charitable to refer to most of the sources I found as WP:SIGCOV. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- AleatoryPonderings, I see you have added 10 more sources which is great, but almost all 10 of them aren’t directly discussing the musical organization, almost all appear to mention them in passing(very briefly) or mere name dropping & like you have rightfully said significant coverage is a huge factor here. The new sources do not discuss the organization with significant coverage hence doesn’t adhere to WP:ORG. Anyway like you have rightfully said I guess it’s time we both rest & let others chime in. Celestina007 21:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Celestina007, Thanks for your clarification :) Much appreciated! I'll leave it to others to assess the reliability of the LA Weekly article, as well as the others I've recently added. Despite the volume of refs I've dropped in, I think I'm still a weak keep as it would be charitable to refer to most of the sources I found as WP:SIGCOV. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- AleatoryPonderings, You are very much correct. A source need not be listed at WP:RSP before it is considered reliable & i should also state that I’m not necessarily referring to a LA Weekly as an utter unreliable source however what I’m calling unreliable is that particular publication, as we all know that even reliable sources sometimes publish unreliable material (an example would be a reliable source publishing a sponsored post, in that context it is unreliable). Generally I think my point is that there aren’t enough reliable sources available for this article to be retained at the moment, even to the point that the same source we seem to be in contention of refer to them as “fast rising” which is a nod to WP:TOOSOON. Celestina007 21:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm aware that LA Weekly and the Los Angeles Times are not the same. In my view, both are reliable sources. Of course, others may disagree. But a source needn't be listed at Wikipedia:Perennial sources in order to be considered reliable. Vetting sources for reliability is, AFAIK, one of the primary purposes of AfD, so I don't think it's fair to dismiss LA Weekly as unreliable simply because it hasn't yet been listed as an unambiguously trusted source. FWIW, my searches revealed hits in other publications I'd consider reliable such as Pitchfork. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- @AleatoryPonderings hello, LA Weekly & the Los Angeles Times aren’t one and the same. Although “respected” it hasn’t been vetted by the community to be a reliable source. Furthermore I’m not sure you should trust that particular publication of theirs it reads a lot like a PR sponsored material. And yes, your three argument is also something I put into consideration, theoretically even if the LA weekly source was reliable (which it isn’t), per WP:GNG, we require in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources & just two sources certainly do not constitute what we would classify as sources. You can carry out a before search so you can see what I am seeing, which is; self published sources, user generated sources, press releases, and other unreliable material. At best this might be a case of WP:TOOSOON as a source used in this article refers to them as fast rising. Celestina007 20:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per the coverage in Billboard and LA Weekly that were already in the article, and the post-AfD nom expassion work that has been done. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Billboard, LA Weekly, Bandcamp, Pitchfork and Spin are all legitimate press coverage, dismissing mentions in these as 'PR' seems excessively pessimistic. The label has recent notable releases. I can add more as I find it. Lewishhh (talk) 09:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - thanks to the improvements by AleatoryPonderings. I agree there should be more references that speak to the label itself, (most of the sources cover the musicians, which is why my !vote is weak because WP:NOTINHERITED), however I think the it is now over the edge of notability. LA Weekly is a reliable source, as are Billboard and Pitchfork; I've always thought Bandcamp was user generated material, but I may be wrong about that. Netherzone (talk) 12:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Netherzone Bandcamp Daily, which is what's being cited, is the area of the site that is an online publication dedicated to music reportage written by their staff and other commissioned music writers.Lewishhh (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- 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.