Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indica 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indica Records

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article deleted via PROD in 2017, WP:REFUND request granted by me just now. This article likely could have been deleted as unambiguous advertising per WP:CSD#G11, but I'm going conservative by AfD instead. This record label exists, but does not appear to be notable by our standards. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally not notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Record labels are not automatically entitled to have articles just because some of the artists signed to the label happen to have cleared WP:NMUSIC — the notability of a record label is a condition of the volume and depth of reliable source media coverage about the label that can be shown to support the article, not just of the fact that the label exists. But this is completely unreferenced, and I can't find any notability-bolstering sources about it in a reference search: all I get is glancing acknowledgements of its existence in sources whose core subjects are the artists, and I'm finding no evidence of any coverage about the label. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I have just reworked the article so would ask people to look again. They were not easy to find, but are actually a couple of articles from reliable sources about the label specically.[1]and [2]. Slp1 (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Exclaim! source represents the company's own founders talking about themselves in the first person in a Q&A format — so it would be fine for extra verification of stray facts in an article that had already cleared GNG on stronger sources, but is not a source that counts toward getting it over GNG in the first place. The Montreal Gazette source is stronger, since it's actually written in the third person by a journalist, but is not in and of itself enough if it's the only source of that calibre that can be shown. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree about the Exclaim article not helping to GNG. The article is not just an interview: there is a listed author and a fairly extensive intro to the label's founding etc, written in the third person. The article is part of a series of features on different Canadian record labels which all follow the same format e.g.[3][4][5]. To me the very fact that they were chosen to be featured in the series is a sign of notability.Slp1 (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Q&A interviews aren't exempted from the problems with sourcing stuff to Q&A interviews just because the interview happens to have a short blurb of prefatory text before the actual questions kick in; every Q&A interview always has a short blurb of prefatory text, because by definition the interview has to give at least a little bit of context for who the interviewees are and why they're being interviewed. And every interview also always has a "listed author", representing the name of the person who conducted the interview, to boot. So those aren't things that make this Q&A interview different from every other Q&A interview, because every Q&A interview always has both of those things. Bearcat (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bearcat is right. The two sources that have been presented as SIGCOV are not really. One's a very promotional interview in a magazine with 100k circulation. The other is in the Montreal Gazette, again with a circulation of 100k. Overall, there are two minor sources about the company, one of which is an interview; we also have a bombardment of trivial "such artist signed with X record company" type articles. None of this indicates strong notability. Therefore I think deleting is appropriate. PK650 (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2020 (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.