Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rocket 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. Despite the voluminous defence of the article by one editor, they were the only person calling for keeping it. Coverage in reliable sources is the fundamental requirement of a Wikipedia article, and the consensus here is that such coverage does not exist. A redirect to The Rocket Record Company after deletion was suggested and I see this as a good idea and so I'll create it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Rocket Records

Rocket 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)

WP:Notability - I am not sure if this is a scam article or not. WP:Sources - As has been clearly identified by another editor. Sources don't support statements. Some are unreliable.

Puffery and furtherance of potentially untrue statements. They state they have numerous satellite offices on their website and that is then reiterated in this article. There are no sources to back this up and a simple Google search finds no data to support: 1. That these addresses/locations are real 2. They occupy space there. PeterWesco (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This AFD request is completely unwarranted. The legitimate article for Rocket Records is in no way a scam article/puffery piece, and the record label is a completely legitimate American company as can be easily found with a simple web search, in direct opposition to the unfounded and untrue statements posted directly above. This article meets all WP:MUSIC, BLP, and Notability guidelines for its continued inclusion in Wikipedia. As an honest editor and well-respected community member of WikiProject Record Labels, I find this particular AFD request to be completely unfounded, and the statements above about the article being a "scam article" and the company not being a legitimate company (which is patently false) both reckless and unproductive. These are the exact types of unwarranted AFD requests that WikiProject Record Labels has painstakingly set out to deal with over the past few months. While there are indeed numerous articles that should be removed from Wikipedia (especially when it comes to music), this is definitely not one of them. I am calling for the immediate closure of this unwarranted AFD discussion. My statements are NOT meant as a personal attack on you PeterWesco, but I do honestly wish that you would choose your words more carefully from now on and not make reckless statements which state your personal opinions as untrue facts. Numerous well-respected and longtime editors/administrators have contributed positively to this legitimate article over time, and in no way is this article a candidate for deletion. The article is being continually improved by both the community and WikiProject Record Labels team, and this AFD request for an article about a legitimate American record label is simply unproductive and unwarranted. Zachtron (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Zero hits for the "legitimate American company" on Google. Zero evidence of "well-respected and longtime editors/administrators" contributing to this article. The long time editors have gone through it and questioned most every statement. Zero evidence of this "legitimate American record label" being in business longer than one year: Florida Articles of Incorporation - Business mailing address is a townhouse in Boca Raton Administratively dissolved by the Secretary of State prior to that: at what appears to be a residential address. Not registered (ever) to do business in NY: No Match PeterWesco (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Completely untrue statement, the Rocket Records you listed which was registered "to a townhouse" (unverified) is totally outdated. It looks as if that particular corporation was dissolved by the State of Florida some years ago. Also, if a corporation is registered out of state, they can have "satellite offices" (as you put it) in any state without being registered as a corporation there. It is offices, many companies do that, it is a common business practice within the United States.

Here are some key factors to note as it directly pertains to the record label, and indirectly the article:

1. Rocket Records is currently registered as an active corporation in the State of Florida and certified as such by the Secretary of State there. The label's executive office address officially registered with the State of Florida fully matches the address publicly listed by the label itself.

2. On the label's front page of their official website, they are distributing Backstreet Boys member Howie Dorough's most recent solo album. The label would be sued and barred from doing so under U.S. Federal law if this was not the case. Also, Dorough himself is pictured numerous times recently on the label's official website with various executives of the label.

3. The label is officially certified under the RIAA, as well as its publishing catalogs with ASCAP and BMI. A "spam company" would never be allowed these distinctions.

4. A moderate web search on Google, Yahoo, Bing, and other common search engines brings up various hits, articles, etc. about the label. I suggest doing more of a thorough search before incorrectly stating the label does not show up on Google at all. As a matter of fact the label's official website comes up as the top hit on Google, so your statement about the label not appearing in Google at all is completely inaccurate.

5. The article's history does indeed show that various editors have made helpful contributions to the article, and recent comments by administrators suggesting that new reliable sources be added to it were constructive edits aimed at bettering the article for the community, not in any way at all for its deletion as you have proposed.

This article is not a warranted candidate for deletion in any way, but like all legitimate Wikipedia articles, should be continually improved upon for the betterment of the entire Wikipedia community, especially as a part of WikiProject Record Labels. Also, the article does meet WP:MUSIC, WP:Notability,, and WP:Sources guidelines, although as correctly pointed out by an experienced administrator very recently, some references should be improved upon and a few more reliable sources added/changed in order to make this completely legitimate article better for the community.

Zachtron (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - the argument about existence or not is a bit of a side-track because whether it exists or not, or is registered or not, is irrelevant to AFD anyway. What matters here is whether or not the company is notable or not, with reference to WP:CORPDEPTH. I will happily accept that the company exists, but it doesn't necessarily WP:INHERIT notability from the people it represents (which would need to be verified anyway) and I can't see a depth of significant coverage in reliable sources that would suggest it is notable. I suggest we move away from arguments as to whether it is registered or not and consider whether the subject is notable, as is the point of AFD. More than happy to consider conjecture in that regard or to look at any reliable sources that confer notability. Stalwart111 00:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - I completely agree with your first point about not getting side-tracked Stalwart. However, the record label itself does meet WP:Notability with reference to WP:CORPDEPTH as it pertains to newer WP:MUSIC category specific guidelines for inclusion. By distributing Dorough's album(s) as well as other notable music acts, the label itself is the notable entity, and does not inherit notability from celebrity musicians such as Dorough. Remember, as a record label, the "people" that the label represents (especially its executives/artists) have a meaningful and unique connection to the label, but do not "pass long" notability to it because of this fact. The label's own merits are notable enough. Also, some of the source references which are about the label's executives and mention the label are not passing along notability, but are merely strengthening the label's own independent notability (which it does have). You seem like a very rational contributor Stalwart, so hopefully you will understand what I am stating here because WP:MUSIC guidelines are different from most, and record labels are a very unique category which I am sure you know. WikiProject Record Labels, which I am an active member of, has done a lot of work recently on articles for this record label and others like it, which are notable enough under new WP:MUSIC category specific guidelines for record labels, but which should of course be continually improved upon for the betterment of Wikipedia. It is essential for the entire project to better these articles and properly categorize them, not delete them as I am sure you can rationally understand.

Zachtron (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• To be perfectly honest, I'm not really sure what you mean by, "WP:MUSIC category specific guidelines for inclusion". I can't see any discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music) about new inclusion criteria for record labels. Do you mean you are going to propose some or that you just don't think WP:MUSIC should apply in this instance? Distributing the music of notable musicians does not make the company inherently notable and suggesting as much is an argument that's not likely to gain much traction here. You need to have a read of WP:RS and then provide links here to some sources that meet that guideline that give significant coverage to the subject. "The label's own merits are notable enough" is not likely to be considered a strong argument. Stalwart111 01:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• No, general WP:MUSIC guidelines should not apply here, but rather category specific guidelines for music producers, composers, songwriters, and executives, which were all recently updated by the community and continue to evolve (which mostly define record labels). I fully understand WP:RS, all I am saying is that record labels are very unique in themselves, and the individuals associated with them (executives, producers, composers, songwriters, artists, etc.) have a tremendous amount to do with the all the different labels' own notability, but not passing along notability for the labels themselves to inherit. In the music industry, 99% of articles, references, etc., are usually about artists, executives, producers, contributors, etc., which include coverage of labels within them. If excessive and super stringent WP:RS and WP:Notability applied to record labels, we would not have articles for any notable record label, even the largest major labels in existence today. I of course propose continually improving this article (as well as all record label articles) with as many new reliable references as possible, but to keep in mind the tremendous uniqueness of record labels in relation to WP:RS and WP:Notability for them. Zachtron (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, I understand what you mean about WP:MUSIC now. I suppose the problem here is that while there are now specific criteria for producers, composers, songwriters, and executives there are no such specific criteria for record labels because we already have WP:CORPDEPTH. Where a subject might be covered by a specific criteria but doesn't quite fit, the answer is to fall back to a relevant criteria or one of the primary criteria. In this case (given we're talking about a company) that would be WP:CORPDEPTH or (falling further back) WP:GNG. If record labels are unique enough (within their own industry and within the context of industry in general) to warrant their own inclusion criteria then that needs to be proposed and you are free to do so. Until then, arguing for a shift in policy to suit one article will likely not be a productive use of your time. Until then, CORPDEPTH is the relevant standard and I don't think it's "excessive" or particularly "stringent" to insist that a corporation pass CORPDEPTH to be included on WP. Stalwart111 03:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I understand what you are saying about WP:CORPDEPTH, although I think that within WP:CORPDEPTH record labels fall under the Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations classification for being as unique as record labels indeed are. WikiProject Record Labels is trying to enhance legitimate record label articles so that they are simply not undesirable "Stubs" that leave readers unsatisfied, which unfortunately there are a lot of out there these days. The article currently does meet WP:MUSIC (including Notability) project tag scale guidelines for C level record labels (which is only slightly above Stub level), but as mentioned recently by a few other editors, some new reliable references should be added (which I am working on along with other members of WikiProject Record Labels and WikiProject Music) to enhance the article. I do not feel that just deleting the article would be productive in any way at all since the label does meet certain WP:MUSIC (including Notability) project tag scale standards for C level record labels, but adding some more reliable references to better satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH is indeed the proper thing to do, especially because as both of us have productively established, record labels are kind of "stuck in between" WP:MUSIC and WP:CORPDEPTH due to their overall uniqueness. I'm sure more reliable references can be added which will better establish WP:CORPDEPTH notability, even under WP:CORPDEPTH's Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations distinction. Zachtron (talk) 05:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'd hate for you to misunderstand where I'm coming from - I don't think they are stuck in the middle. They are companies and so should (in my view) meet WP:CORPDEPTH or be deleted. The section of CORPDEPTH that you reference is prefaced with the note, No organization is considered notable except to the extent that independent sources demonstrate that it has been noticed by people outside of the organization and is followed by a series of sub-headings, none of which I believe this subject is likely to fit into anyway. Attempts to add sources are commendable but I would strongly suggest you start a list the talk page for this AFD so people can consider them against WP:RS and WP:GNG. As an aside, user-added assessments of articles are (basically) never considered with respect to notability. Good and Featured Articles can be deleted if they are about non-notable subjects. Stalwart111 05:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• I understand now where you are coming from with regards to your thoughts on WP:CORPDEPTH as it relates to record labels. I also know that user-added assessments do indeed mean very little to nothing at all with respect to notability. My whole point is adding reliable sources which clearly demonstrate the notability of the label itself, and not inherited notability from the major celebrity music acts such as Dorough and other key individuals that the label is notable for. If your opinion is to classify the label as a general company that must meet WP:CORPDEPTH (to which I partially agree with), than reliable sources demonstrating the notability of the label itself will be needed in order to meet the WP:CORPDEPTH guidelines with regards to WP:GNG as you have stated. However, I respectfully disagree with your sentiment that record labels are "ordinary" companies which should fall directly under WP:CORPDEPTH. I personally feel that they should meet WP:MUSIC GNG guidelines first and foremost, but also meet a certain level of WP:CORPDEPTH guidelines as well. You raised a very good point earlier about proposing new guidelines all together for record labels under WP:MUSIC GNG guidelines since there seems to be little attention paid to that area. It is a proposal that I may indeed make and use this article (as well as a few other record labels like it) as the "test case". In fact, that is why community members started WikiProject Record Labels some time back, although they failed to really follow up on new GNG guidelines for record labels under WP:MUSIC. In the meantime we can keep this discussion open, or perhaps close it when/if reliable sources which meet WP:CORPDEPTH GNG guidelines are added/approved. I agree about WP:CORPDEPTH GNG guidelines having a large factor at present time, but I also think that existing (and hopefully new) WP:MUSIC GNG guidelines as it directly pertains to record labels should carry the most weight since record labels is the main subject matter at hand. I'm a little bit surprised that new GNG guidelines for record labels were never really addressed when all of the recent WP:MUSIC category guidelines were made by the community at-large, but then again as I stated before, record labels are quite often last on the "music pecking order" behind artists, producers, composers, songwriters, executives, etc., especially when it comes to overall coverage, so maybe that should not be too surprising at all. We can keep the discussion going, but your suggestion earlier about possibly proposing specific GNG guidelines for record labels under WP:MUSIC may indeed be a good idea, and also very productive for Wikipedia all together. Zachtron (talk) 07:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Again, I think record labels are specifically not addressed at WP:MUSIC because that guideline is about people or groups of people. A record label isn't a "group of people" like a band and categorising it as such (I think) is disingenuous because it relies on inherited notability. A group of musicians in a band must be notable for what they have done as a band for the band to be included on WP. What they have done previously is inconsequential - it doesn't make their "latest project" notable. Likewise, what a music executive has done previously might make him notable, but it doesn't make his "latest project" (company, band, family, product, etc) notable. For the company to be notable it needs to pass WP:CORPDEPTH - there are simply no WP:MUSIC guidelines for it to meet because it is not a person and cannot be given credit for the creative things its employees do/have done. At this point I'd caution you against bludgeoning the process by responding to every delete opinion. The best way to convince people is to provide a list of reliable sources that give the subject "significant coverage" to demonstrate it meets WP:GNG. Do that and arguments about other criteria will be a moot point. Stalwart111 23:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete and redirect Per nomination and PeterWesco. Most importantly, an article was previously created by a bunch of socks (see Talk:The Rocket Record Company collapsed section). They were all blocked and about a month later the Zachtron account was created and their only purpose appears to be to recreate this non-notable, self-promotional article.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

We have a productive discussion going on here, and I don't know what your issue is IAOOM, but you have no right to lump me in with a bunch of sock puppet individuals that were blocked from Wikipedia in the past. I do not know where you get "self-promotion" accusations from, because the article is totally neutral with multiple sources (although some do need to be improved). Also, look at all of my article edit contributions (many that have zero to do with Rocket Records), because I have contributed in good faith to many different articles even though I have spent a lot of time recently trying to improve this particular article. I have never done anything to contribute to Wikipedia in an unproductive manner, and your comments lumping me in with strangers are not productive. If you don't like this article that is fine, but do not jump into the middle of a productive discussion and start throwing reckless accusations around at me in order to support your "buddy" (I'm guessing by the timing of it). For the record, I even supported the deletion of articles that I contributed (Ryan Prescott and Diverse) after the general consensus was that they failed Notability. I always respect the community's opinions even when I do not agree with them. Zachtron (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. The article that used to be Rocket Records was moved to The Rocket Record Company. It is not clear what Elton John's original company was called but here [1] is a reliable source that calls it Rocket Records. At the very least, Rocket Records should redirect to The Rocket Record Company.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

  This is a good idea. Given that many articles, images, etc., that link to Rocket Records refer to the Elton John label, this would serve as a legitimate redirect and would save some time, in that it makes more sense than going through and relinking all of those articles to the new location. --Kinu ^t/_c

  That is no way factually correct (though the Elton John label was mistakenly referred to as "RR" by some), and every single internal Wikipedia link (articles, images, artist articles, album articles, producer articles, songwriter articles, etc.) which had any association and linked to Elton John's old label was properly re-linked directly to The Rocket Record Company article, ensuring full link integrity. That process took over 3 full weeks to complete (it was not easy either), but was done to properly satisfy the exact concern you just raised Kinu. If you feel this article for the American record label should be deleted, and that is the consensus then fine, but the existing Rocket Records is a legitimate record label officially registered with the RIAA and not some "spam company". That is indeed actual fact. Zachtron (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

  a.k.a Rocket Records [2]--I am One of Many (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

  Like I stated, that was an indeed an incorrect name mistakenly used at times (it drove Elton John crazy too). This is the actual name [1] for Elton's old label, both officially and in the published media. The Rocket Record Company and Rocket Records are both commercially registered and officially licensed record labels under the RIAA, though Elton's old label is now defunct and the American label is a currently existing entity. It would simply be very productive and great for reader experience to improve all record label articles and properly categorize them. That is the main directive of WikiProject Record Labels as initiated by the Wikipedia community at-large, in particular WikiProject Music's sub project (which includes WikiProject Record Labels) contributors. Zachtron (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

  "a.k.a." means "also know as." The Rocket Record Company is also known as Rocket Records and that is the only thing notable about Rocket Records and why, after deletion, Rocket Records should be redirected to The Rocket Record Company.--I am One of Many (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

If a move of The Rocket Record Company back to Rocket Records is being considered, I'd like to discourage that. Elton John's company was occasionally referred to by its official name in reliable sources, as shown by Google Books hits: [3]. WP:COMMONNAME says "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." Rocket Records is ambiguous because it may refer to the newer company that is the current subject of Rocket Records. If this article is deleted, I see no problem with the redirect requested by User:I am One of Many; a move to Rocket Record Company would be fine too. —rybec 22:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Rybec is absolutely correct, although fortunately I do not think that IAOOM or anybody else here is suggesting moving anything, which would be totally incorrect. I still disagree with IAOOM saying that "Rocket Records" is notable only for Elton's old label, but obviously a re-direct would be the only secondary option which would make some sense if this article about the existing American record label is fully deleted. I rationally suggest "Stubbing" this record label article for a short period of time and allowing the community to improve upon it with newer reliable references rather than a total delete, which I honestly do not believe serves a productive purpose for readers. If Notability is the main issue, Stub the American label's article temporarily and get better reliable sources which meet WP:GNG (for WP:MUSIC) and WP:CORP guidelines. If those guidelines cannot be met after a short period of time, re-direct "Rocket Records" to The Rocket Record Company until such point in time that WP:GNG (for music) and WP:CORP can be better established for the existing American label Rocket Records. I am starting an official proposal over at WP:MUSIC for the community at-large to better establish and decide upon inclusion guidelines for record labels, a category which was not covered in the recent WP:MUSIC GNG updates made by the general community. This is all that I am simply suggesting. Zachtron (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

AfDs run for seven days. That is more than enough time to find sources, if they exist. Also, looking at Special:WhatLinksHere/Rocket_Records, your claim that "every single internal Wikipedia link" was changed isn't quite accurate. A redirect (because, quite frankly, I see no hope of this article being saved; the references just don't exist) would make changing those links unnecessary. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not this article about the American record label is saved, I will go about the productive task of changing (it should not take me more than a week) all of the remaining Elton-related links directly to The Rocket Record Company. I did already do my best to directly link all of Elton's albums as well as many of his old label's artists to the page for The Rocket Record Company. This should be done regardless, because even if the article about the existing American record label Rocket Records is ultimately deleted, a future new one (or perhaps something different all-together) may possibly be created once WP:GNG and WP:CORP have been better established for the American label through new reliable references and media coverage. Zachtron (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete this spam. Rocket Records lack coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. Many of the sources provided in this article do not meet WP:RS; those that are reliable sources do not discuss this company the depth necessary to show WP:GNG or WP:CORP is met. Indeed, some of the sources don't even mention the company at all, so why they are included as references is incomprehensible. If all the uncited and irrelevant content were to be removed, there would be nothing left here that isn't just an attempt at notability by association. This article appears to be part of a walled garden in that the creator has edited little to nothing outside of the scope of this and related coatrack articles that are similarly poorly-sourced puff pieces. (Addendum: after deletion, recreate as a redirect to The Rocket Record Company.) --Kinu ^t/_c 13:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I just contributed a moderate edit to this article, deleting mostly the poorly sourced and non-relevant information found in the article as correctly noted by various editors/administrators. This shortened the article by a good deal as well. I also classified the article as a Record Label Stub, so that it can be productively expanded upon by the community at-large. I suggest keeping the newly edited article as a Record Label Stub under WikiProject Record Labels and WikiProject Music as opposed to a full deletion, which would not serve a fully productive purpose for community readers in my honest estimation. New WP:MUSIC guidelines (including WP:GNG and WP:CORP specific to record labels) will hopefully be quickly established via official proposal of such to the entire community at-large. The community at-large recently made changes to WP:MUSIC article inclusion guidelines for all articles about music producers, composers, and songwriters, and article inclusion guidelines for record labels will most likely be classified somewhat similarly, though exactly how so is still yet to be determined by the Wikipedia community at-large. Zachtron (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Considering there are zero reliable sources that discuss the company provided in an article that is supposed to be about the company, I would guess your proposal will have zero traction. WP:V is a policy. There has been plenty of time to find sources. If they don't exist, no article. Sorry. To use your words, keeping an article that does not even come close to meeting Wikipedia's editorial standards "would not serve a fully productive purpose for community readers." --Kinu ^t/_c 18:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is an article from The New York Times about Rocket Records. The New York Times is certainly a reliable source and strong enough to use as a verifiable reference for keeping the article about Rocket Records as a Record Label Stub article rather than a full delete. This source certainly addresses WP:GNG, WP:V WP:CORP, and WP:MUSIC. I would think everybody would at least agree that fairly significant coverage in The New York Times certainly helps legitimize the label's notability in a pretty solid capacity. Zachtron (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

How come this site was apparently just created today? [4]. Why does every link take me back to the legitimate New York Times site? Why can't I find this article on the real New York Times archive site?--I am One of Many (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You are really grasping at straws now in my opinion IAOOM. I'm not a believer in conspiracies, and domains get updated every single day I would imagine. I wonder why all of the links would directly go back and connect to the real New York Times website as you just pointed out. Maybe because it a part of the real site? Everything checks out on the link you just provided, the site is a section of the official Times website, and is even registered to the Times company in New York. I suggest perhaps just admitting that you were a bit incorrect rather than grasping at empty straws and conspiracies? I am not a media expert by any means, but The New York Times would never have run that story or officially own a domain registered directly to them. I'm sorry, but now I think you are either really over-reaching to prove an incorrect point or perhaps have a personal agenda regarding this particular article. I honestly have no idea what it is, but it seems really out there with all due respect IAOOM.

By the way, isn't GoDaddy a major domain name company (sorry, I'm not that personally familiar with how domain names work)? They would definitely get sued by The New York Times if there is a conspiracy as you are suggesting in my opinion. I just scrolled the entire website article links and it is definitely part on the New York Times website. I'm not the smartest guy in the world when it comes to web stuff but even I can see that. Zachtron (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is the whois for the nytimes [5]. The site you posted looks like a spam site to me. It appears to only have this one article on it... hmmm... If you search the archives on the real nytimes site, you can't find this "article". If you find it on the real site, then I'll consider it as a possible independent source.--I am One of Many (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It is an archived article from March 2012, and the Times probably has thousands of those. The domain name link that you provided is registered to The New York Times Company. Obviously it is a part of their official website and/or company network of sites. How much more "independent" of a source do you need? You actually just provided a very helpful link to prove that the website is not a spam website. It is owned by the New York Times itself as per the link that you just provided. Either GoDaddy would get sued by The New York Times or the Times would definitely get sued by the label Rocket Records for libel if your conspiracy held any weight at all in my personal opinion. It is a New York Times article from last year about the label on a New York Times owned website from the information you provided and is found in The New York Times archives where the article is located. Zachtron (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the record says the details of the registrant were provided by the registrant, "as is" with no control as to what details are provided and no oversight from GoDaddy. Given the highly detailed entry for the obviously legitimate NYTimes site, it does seem strange that an archives site would be created yesterday, with one article, registered with a domain provider that is different to that used by NYT for every other URL they own and without the same manager details (the names of individuals are provided by the NYT for other URLs). I'm not one for conspiracy theories either, but to use a WP analogy, WP:QUACK. Stalwart111 01:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

And here's what the New York Times site has to say about New York Times archives - NYT archive. No mention of an external site. This should actually be very easy to resolve. Given every other NYT-associated URL is registered to an individual (in addition to the company) and this URL isn't, an email to that individual asking her to confirm whether it is one of hers should do the trick. Stalwart111 01:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Look, I don't know much about domain names and web stuff as I stated. In fact, I know very little to nothing about them. The article came up in a Bing and Google search far down the pages when searching for "Rocket Records record label". I honestly do not believe in far out there conspiracies that would be this elaborate by hoaxers/hackers, but perhaps there are aliens in the universe and life on other planets that I don't know about either. The administrator Kinu said that the current sources are not sufficient enough, and The New York Times does meet Wikipedia reference guidelines. I don't know what else to say other than I'm about to give up on productively saving this article for WikiProject Music simply because it has gotten beyond "chaotic" and controversial with some of you editors for some inexplicable reason. I really do not know what else to honestly say or think at this point, but there are many other record label articles which need work, so we will see how this goes and if more references can be found by the WikiProject Music team members. Zachtron (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem is that is was created yesterday. Even searching whole quotes in quotation marks doesn't bring the article up in Google results. Searching for the author and subject brings up 4 results - none of them relating to this "article". It's hard to see how the Google "bots" could possible have found this, "crawled" it in less than 24 hours and produce it as a result for a general search, when a specific search produces nothing. If it's not available in google now, how were you able to find it hours earlier and only hours after it was created? Add to that the obviously questionable domain and it starts to look like someone created the site and the article yesterday right at the point where the primary subject is being considered for deletion here and not long after article proponents were told that an article in the NYT (for example) would change the outcome. WP:AGF and all that, but you have to concede it is very strange, the timing even more so. It's certainly a lot of effort for someone to go to for the sake of keeping an article but it's nothing we haven't see here before when conflicts of interest are involved. Stalwart111 02:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I usually assume good faith with contributors, and in this case I just can't see these various entities all being legally liable for this. The domain name registrant company GoDaddy, The New York Times, Rocket Records, etc.. I just think this is reaching at a conspiracy that simply does not exist based on the link provided by IAOOM, but we'll see. I would think lawsuits in court would be a real possibility between all of these different companies if this is a fake hoax, and the record label Rocket Records is officially registered with the RIAA which is not possible unless legitimate commercial music releases have been put out by them. Also, wouldn't the celebrity music acts like that Backstreet Boys member sue the record label or New York Times if this was a hoax? I'm sure the Backstreet Boy must have a lot of money in the coffer based on his career earnings. Maybe the WikiProject Music team will find other sources as well to either confirm/disprove this one, but it just seems like a drawing at straws conspiracy to me by editors that simply do not like this article. I understand some of what you are saying Stalwart, and I know very little to nothing about web stuff as I said, but there just appears to be too much real and tangible information out there for such a conspiracy hoax to exist. Hey, maybe there is life on Mars too, who knows. Zachtron (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Stalwart, you are correct, they never found it in searches on google or bing, it is not indexed yet on either. So, I guess we are suppose to believe that the New York Times created a new website yesterday just for this article and they sent a link to it to Zachtron just to save this article on rocket records?--I am One of Many (talk) 02:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

IAOOM, chill with the attack accusations please. You will definitely find it on Bing scrolling a ways down the pages with search term. If you have a problem with the source than check it out, but don't get on me personally with unwarranted accusations again. Whether the Rocket Records article gets saved or not will happen one way or another, but please no more negative comment attacks on me personally. We are trying to catalog all of these RIAA certified record labels as best as possible under WikiProject Music, and your rude public comments at me are not appreciated. Not an attack on you, just saying it's not needed is all. I know you don't like this article and I get your point. Just please show me a tiny bit of respect even if you do not like my editing contributions. I have a lot of other work to do for other music articles, so we'll see what happens with this one. Thank you and regards. Zachtron (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This website is a joke and is clearly garbage. Created today, not registered to someone with a @nytimes.com e-mail address, non-functional internal links (the "print" link at the bottom is particularly telling), no evidence of any other archival material on the site, no evidence of a Jeff Trager writing any such article for the NYT? Seriously, find another hobby. Note: I am blocking this editor because, at this point, WP:AGF is out the window. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete It pains me to say this, as I thought I was getting some help at Record Labels, even if by a self-appointed "respected leader", but I'm not sure the whole thing isn't a hoax at this point. There is an article about the founder, but as in this article, all references are irrelevant or unreliable. Perhaps it also needs AFD. Every important claim is unverified. I have searched all Billboard archives, and I can not find anything about Tim Coons, or Atlantic Hill Music, which seems odd given the claims of working with such major artists, both here in this article and on the Atlantic Hill website. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 04:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I thought we were dealing with socks spamming a non-notable record label, but looking into it more carefully, it does all appear to be an internet hoax, including the Wikipedia article Christopher Pasquin. If so, Zachtron has created substantial damage that will have to be corrected (i.e., redirects, some link changes, and text in articles).--I am One of Many (talk) 06:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a hoax - there are all sorts of photos of various people, some with celebrities, details of a whole bunch of non-notable up-and-coming artists that do seem to exist and photos of people with instruments, recording equipment and various other things. Those photos are limited to the websites of the companies in question but it strikes me as something that would take far more effort to fake than it would to simply start a non-notable recording company (which even I could do). So I don't think we're dealing with a hoax, just a non-notable company and associated non-notable people. Stalwart111 10:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Move to close - only one person thought this should be kept and he has now been indef'd for disruptive editing. No need to prolong the pain, surely? Stalwart111 10:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

References

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.