Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake Four Inc.

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fake Four Inc.

[edit]
Fake Four Inc. (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 self-published record label who has never had an act appear on any major chart. (CMJ is not major in any way). No significant coverage of the company failing WP:CORP and GNG. The Dissident Aggressor 13:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited: Even if the company's products are notable, that doesn't mean the company is notable by itself. WP:CORP is pretty straight-forward and WP:MUSIC doesn't apply to labels. The Dissident Aggressor 21:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why WP:CORP would be used as a standard here; I have occasionally heard this argued before, but it makes no sense. Whether or not a record label is notable ought to be decided by experts in music, not experts in business, and since WP:MUSIC has something to say about this, it should not be ignored. Chubbles (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fake Four is not a music creator or creation which is what Wp:MUSIC is explicitly about. We're talking about a non-creative business like a promoter, retailer, distributor, a recording studio or an instrument manufacturer. How would anything other than WP:CORP and/or WP:GNG apply? Beyond that, what aspect of WP:MUSIC would apply? The Dissident Aggressor 00:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Labels issue culture, and are thus different from, say, an investment bank or a supermarket chain; they should no more be judged solely as corporations than bands themselves should be (and we don't use WP:CORP to determine a band's notability, even though bands are unquestionably businesses). The best and most specific criterion for determining a label's encyclopedic worth is given in WP:MUSIC, where it states a band is notable if it is on an important label - one that has been around for more than a few years and has a roster with many notable acts. Fake Four passes this test. Chubbles (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, a band can pass WP:MUSIC if it's on an important label. Labels package or "issue" culture. Nothing on on WP:Music addresses labels, or other ancillary organizations that "issue" or otherwise publish culture like music download sites. Nothing. You're completely mistaken that WP:MUSIC contains any definition of "important labels" - it's not there. We have other standards for related businesses. The Dissident Aggressor 00:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe your statements above are refuted on their face by what I've already said, so I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. Chubbles (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Chubbles, record labels are clearly mentioned in WP:MUSIC. I am not !voting yet, as I need to check the notability of the artists on the label page, to check for walled garden. If a label has signed that many notable artists as is suggested at first glance, notability is strongly suggested. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 11:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article was created long before Ceschi's legal troubles. And the label has released numerous albums by notable underground acts (including Ceschi, whose article should not have been deleted, as notability is actually easily establishable with a quick google, contrary to the above comment). - Forty.4 (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ceschi was deleted and salted for the right reason - consensus. The Dissident Aggressor 21:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Was there even an AFD discussion for the Ceschi deletion? If so could you link me to it please? The one linked to from the salted page is from 2007. He has become a good deal more notable since then, releasing his most widely reviewed album and founding Fake Four. Non-notability is not a permanent affliction. - Forty.4 (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as above, I'm still on delete on this one. The giant list of artists (all sourced to Allmusic, which would list my band if I bought a drum set) is no evidence of notability for this record label. Where has anyone written about the record label? The only source that qualifies is the ugsmag.com source; the others are dead links or improper citations such that I can't tell what they are referring to anyway, and one reliable source is not enough. There's maybe one more in this article but that makes me think that the label is only notable because of the criminal activity of its creator, and we already didn't keep an article on him. As such, this fails WP:GNG. Ivanvector (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The label has been written about in every review of each record it has put out. Also, I agree with Chubbles and 78.26 that a label that has put out dozens of albums by notable artists is likely notable on that basis alone (I think ipso facto, but also because it will have received coverage as part of the coverage of those albums). The artists whose listings are referenced to AllMusic in the label's article mostly have their own articles with their own sources establishing their own notability. Ceschi's article (which had been stable for over 2 years) was deleted and salted without discussion (based on a prior discussion from 8 years ago) by an admin who didn't even bother to click through to The One Man Band Broke Up, which has several sources establishing its--and therefore Ceschi's--notability. - Forty.4 (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The giant farm of Allmusic links now present in the article is there because the nominator insisted that they be rigorously sourced pursuant to WP:BURDEN. It was the only way I could ensure that the list remain on the page at all. Chubbles (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making the point that there are no other real sources. QED. The Dissident Aggressor 06:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing "fake" about the sources I provided is the name of the label. You asked for WP:V, and I provided it. Chubbles (talk) 11:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The label is mentioned in each of the reviews as the briefest of footnotes. The reviews are not about the record label, and doing a lot of things doesn't make a subject notable. Ivanvector (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty sweeping statement; did you check every referenced review for every Fake Four album by every artist on the label? While this may be true for most of the reviews, it's not true of all of them. Here are some reviews that contain substantial commentary on the label's aesthetic, ethos and significance:

"About a decade ago, the hip-hop underground was being challenged by an artsy rap collective called Anticon that inspired and opened doors for other experimental hip-hop artists. Orlando, FL rapper Bleubird came up during this period, building a name for himself as a rapid-fire MC with a message worth imparting and a witty way with words with which to spread it. Graduating from long-time label Endemik, Cannonball!!! is his first effort with Fake Four, the spiritual successor to Anticon." - Exclaim!

"Busdriver's ninth solo studio album is a fine fit for Fake Four, as their genre-bending hip-hop and open acceptance of rappers singing has given many experimentally-minded MCs the opportunity to flirt with the pop music world." - Exclaim!

"With each successive release, label Fake Four Inc. moves further into territory previously dominated by Anticon and Mush, as defined by their Frankenstein-like fusion of rap, indie rock, folk and electronica, mostly centred upon Saskatoon, SK producer Factor's collaborative creations. His compilation, Lawson Graham, was the label's most extreme example of this aesthetic, until the release of this collaboration with Guelph, ON singer-songwriter Gregory Pepper." - Exclaim!

"The sound of indie rap as filtered through warped children's music is a great match for Fake Four Inc, with Logic's singing on "Bet the Farm" and elsewhere sounding similar to that of label head Ceschi, while his high-speed raps on "Chip off the Old Blog" sound like an attempt to give Busdriver a run for his fast-rap money." - Exclaim!

"Hats off to Fake-Four Records and label head Ceschi Ramos for taking in fledgling artists like Sadistik or Dark Time Sunshine and giving them a real opportunity to not only succeed, but also preserve the art of hip-hop." - Sputnik Music

This is in addition to this lengthy Ugsmag interview about the label with Ceschi, and this interview with the head of sister label/distributor Circle Into Square, as well as some other commentary on the label in a series of interviews conducted with artists on the roster, such as Factor, Onry Ozzborn and Moka Only. -- Forty.4 (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Label is notable for length of operation, wide distribution, and number of notable artists signed, not because of the founder. Many of the artists on the label's list are of dubious notability, but there are also numerous artists of unquestionable notability. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So the label can inherit notability from its suppliers (the acts it distributes) instead of passing WP:GNG? The Dissident Aggressor 05:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're well-founded argument only addresses the first my points. I wish someone else were responding, who could more articulately demonstrate what I am trying to say. The concept is, what makes a record label notable, and why are record labels notable at all in the first place? Record labels are notable because they have influence on culture in general and a greater influence on musical culture in specific. This is demonstrated by the fact that many collectors will accumulate all examples of a label they can acquire, and the depth of coverage devoted to individual labels. There is no argument among discographers and musicologists that the personalities and operating culture of a label can and does have significant influence on artists' musical output. I am by no means arguing that every record label is notable, and I would say that probably 75% of the labels introduced here are of no encyclopedic value. I think that Fake Four is notable because of its cultural significance, and this cultural significance can be measured by the number of notable artists promoted/distributed, the length of operation, and the geographic scope of distribution. It is therefore likely that those interested in the "art" produced by this label (and I am utterly not among them) would want to know more about this organization, and the topic is therefore of inherent encyclopedic value, containing non-trivial knowledge, containing verifiable information, even is that information has to be compiled from numerous independent sources that do not provide "in-depth" coverage when taken autonomously, but where it is possible to assemble reasonable context from reliable, verifiable sources without delving into WP:OR. This line of reasoning is borrowed from the bullet-point of WP:BASIC, which is specific to biographies, but the principle is applicable here. GNG is a both the most used and probably useful guideline we have here, and I am not trying to dismiss its importance. But it is a subset of WP:N, where at the very top of the guideline it states that common sense must be applied. Therefore, I am taking to position that it is Wikipedia is improved if it has an article on Fake Four as the topic is notable (of encyclopedic value) as "one of the more important indie labels" as defined by WP:MUSIC. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, but where are the sources? All we seem to have is a collection of reviews of work that the label was involved in, but none of those reviews are coverage in any sort of depth about the label - most only list the label and say nothing more about it. If the label has had a notable impact on musical culture, the way that we measure such a thing is that independent sources have written about it. About the label's influence, not just that it exists. WP:GNG is not just our most referred notability guideline, it is paramount: all of our other notability guidelines are supplemental to it. If a subject does not pass WP:GNG, we do not have an article about it, end of story. Ivanvector (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, you seem to have ignored almost everything I said. Where is the policy that says "must meet GNG, end of story". If that were true, why in the world do we waste so much time on these AfD debates? If GNG were the only factor to consider in each and every case, it wouldn't be called a guideline, it would be called the General Notability Commandment. GNG is a very, very useful tool, but it is not an idol to which we must slavishly bow and worship. Absent COMPELLING rationale, GNG is the best way to establish whether or not a topic is of encyclopedic value. I am attempting here to present just that compelling rationale. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, apologies, I did not ignore what you said. What you said about music labels being culturally influential is very correct; we have an article on record labels because their influence is very strongly indicated by the volume of independent content written about them, but that doesn't mean that every record label is notable. What you said about Fake Four is quite possibly also true, these things may be indicators of a label's real-world notability, but the only standard that we use to gauge a subject's notability is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources (i.e. it is notable because reliable sources have noted it). Notability is not based on feeling, it is based on sources. If there are no sources, there is no notability. You're also correct that GNG is not policy. The policy is What Wikipedia is not, specifically Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We eliminate indiscriminate information by ensuring that information we include passes a basic test, which is the General Notability Guideline. GNG is general, so we have other notability guidelines which adapt the principles of GNG for specific topics, but in all cases, those supplementary notability guidelines are meant to be an indicator of whether a subject is likely to pass GNG or not. GNG is always the test, and if you do not have significant coverage in multiple independent sources, the subject fails GNG, and we don't have an article about it. You cannot wish away GNG with "compelling rationale" unless that rationale is in the form of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Ivanvector (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're in 99% agreement in principle, if not specifics. Please show me a policy that proves GNG is "always" the test, no exceptions. I have clearly demonstrated where and how "da rulz" say exceptions should be given, but Wikipedia "rules" often are in conflict with each other, hence this invigorating discussion. I agree that Wikipedia should not be an indiscriminate collection, and that is the reason it is important to demonstrate that Fake Four is "one of the more important indie labels". 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're going to keep on in circles around the policies and guidelines here, but I'll try again. Above, you mentioned both the WP:BASIC guideline for biographies (which refers directly to GNG) and the verifiability policy, which I assume here contain the "exceptions" you're referring to. I disagree; there are no exceptions. BASIC (which is specific to biographies, but let's ignore that) is a restatement of GNG: a subject is presumed notable if there is significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. If the depth of coverage of individual sources is not significant then multiple sources independent of each other may be combined to demonstrate notability. That is not at odds with GNG at all. As for WP:V providing exceptions, I'm not sure I understand; the verifiability policy requires that all information must be able to be verified from a reliable source; there are exceptions such as WP:BLUE but this doesn't seem to have much to do with notability. For a very long time, consensus has been that GNG is the paramount notability guideline. The other notability guidelines are meant as indicators (or perhaps shortcuts) to determine when, in most cases, a subject is likely to have received the required coverage, as a shortcut for quickly determining if any subject is article-worthy or not. For example, we have a supplementary notability guideline for films which lists criteria which "generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist." It's a helper guideline to suggest whether sources are likely to exist for a given film, but, always, sources are required. If you can show me a guideline or policy which states that we don't need sources, that GNG can be waived off, I will show you one which goes against WP:V. Ivanvector (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, there is no exception to WP:V, and if my argument seemed to assert such, I truly despair of my abilities! My point is that even if GNG is not the perfect guide in all instances, WP:V must be met. WP:V is a pillar, a whole 'nother level. I neither suggest sources are not needed, nor that GNG should be casually waived off. In fact if I thought this was anywhere near a casual exception, I wouldn't be investing so much time in it. I do think in this instance a supplementary notability guideline is needed. One does not exist for labels, so I must make a strong argument showing the reason why Wikipedia is better off by including, rather than excluding, this particular topic. That said, I maintain a supplementary notability guideline for labels is strongly suggested by NMUSIC, but it would be much preferable if it were explicitly spelled-out. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In a way, this article is a perfect illustration for why the GNG is a Procrustean bed for some (many?) topics. If we want encyclopedic coverage of certain topics, but we hew solely to the GNG as if it were policy, we will inevitably come to situations where something clearly encyclopedic must be thrown away. (Conversely, we've seen that sometimes meeting the GNG is, in fact, not enough - thus the wars to implement WP:BIO1E.) We'd have the same problems (I think we have already had the same problems) with tiny hamlets in far-flung rural corners, or persons who played one or two games in Major League Baseball, or bronze medalists in the 1912 Olympics. But we are pretty sure that medaling in an Olympics is something noteworthy in and of itself, something that merits coverage in an encyclopedia. And so, some of us have it, everyone who medaled ought to have information provided in this encyclopedia for those curious about them. I think the same way about hitting national charts, and have in fact dedicated enormous amounts of time to writing articles about musicians who've scraped the lower rungs of pop charts internationally; I think there should be at least a skeletal article about every one of them. And we can do that and still meet WP:V; there are reliable books published listing everyone who's ever had a Major League at-bat, or listing everyone who's ever hit the Billboard 200. Those who find more sources can then fill them out, but at least some minimal amount of information can be provided for an inherently encyclopedic topic. Furthermore, we don't have WP:INDISCRIMINATE problems there, because there is a standard; rising to that standard means you're in, not rising to it means maybe you're out, unless you meet some other standard (of which the GNG can be one). A GNG-only standard would remove the bronze medalists and the chart-scrapers and the tiny rural map dots, but at what cost? This article rises to a standard - an existing standard, in an existing guideline - indicating its importance, such that removing it from the encyclopedia would serve to impoverish the corpus. "GNG or bust" is not policy; it doesn't even follow current guidelines, and I regard it as a partisan stance rather than some inevitability that we must insist upon in all cases. I take the opposite stance. Chubbles (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If a band's albums receive copious reviews, but the band receives no independent coverage outside of their albums, should the band's article be deleted via WP:NOTINHERITED, so that we have several album articles but no artist article? If a writer's novel is widely reviewed, do we declare the book notable, but not the author? If this is now a widely accepted deletion rationale, it's a frankly silly one. Thankfully, I don't think it is. Substantial coverage of an artist's albums is de facto substantial coverage of the artist. WP:MUSIC, again, gives a clear rationale for establishing label notability, the only guideline that actually discusses labels specifically; it is not in contradiction with WP:NOTINHERITED, if the latter is read in its entirety. Chubbles (talk) 11:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely yes, on both counts. If a band's work is reviewed by multiple independent sources, then it's likely to pass WP:GNG, and its albums might as well. If a novel is an important work and is widely reviewed and criticized, but the author is otherwise unheard of, then we have an article about the novel but not about the artist. And it would be a very long stretch indeed to base an article on the publisher on one of its novels. You're right that, generally, coverage of an artist's albums is coverage of the artist, but not always. As for the record label, it does not inherit notability by having its name attached to notable things. WP:MUSIC says nothing about establishing the notability of record labels; the section which mentions indie labels is for establishing the notability of an artist who has released under such a label, not about the label itself. A notable record label has sources writing about it, not just reviewing the artists signed to it. Ivanvector (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per IAR. Wikipedia is both a serious encyclopedia and a compendium of popular culture. We should treat these things differently, holding encyclopedic content to rigid and objective standards for inclusion and treating pop culture much more leniently — as the value in a compendium lies in its completeness. I don't see how deleting this article (or any of the multiple hundreds of thousands of articles vaguely like it) improves WP in the slightest. This is an established enough label for inclusion, in my view. That's a terrible AfD argument, I realize, but I believe there is truth in what I say. Carrite (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, that is a terrible AfD argument, but since you acknowledged it I'll just link to the general essay on that topic, for the benefit of others. We are not a compendium of popular culture, we are an encyclopedia. We have a lot of content on popular culture topics, because popular culture is well documented, but there's no double standard - all of these meet our rigid and objective standards for inclusion. Of course I know some pages don't, but WP:AADD again, and that's why we have deletion discussions. Ivanvector (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2015 (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/Fake_Four_Inc.&oldid=1137842108"