Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macro Recordings

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 redirect to Stefan Goldmann. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Macro Recordings

[edit]

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

Macro Recordings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:NCORP. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article's subject meets WP:NMUSIC or WP:NCORP – this is a music label whose releases have been nominated for important industry awards, have repeatedly entered annual readers' polls of relevant media and are regularly reviewed/featured in leading music media and beyond, such as the New York Times, Der Spiegel and the BBC. Several artist articles on Wikipedia link to it. See expanded article.Planetdust (talk) 10:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Several references are primary; others do not satisfy notability for Music/Others given in WP:NMUSICOTHER --Whiteguru (talk) 10:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are no primary references in the article at all – all are either press articles by notable media or official sites of award-granting organisations etc. How do others – which others – not satisfy notability? No pseudoarguments please. As far as WP:NMUSICOTHER is concerned, points 1 & 3 are met. Probably also 5. Planetdust (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WP:NMUSICOTHER clearly states that it applies to "Composers and performers" (first line) and not companies. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Addressed this since the 'delete' proposal by Amanuensis Balkanicus & vote by Whiteguru refer to WP:NMUSICOTHER. Both can be ignored if somebody believes that they are based on wrong premises. Planetdust (talk) 12:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Properly sourced & meets notability criteria. Numerous releases by genre-leading artists.Artur Berkut (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or possibly redirect to Stefan Goldmann) - Despite what the two previous "keep" voters said, the music company is not covered in reliable sources. That's because every time the company is mentioned in the press, the story is actually about a record or musician but not the company itself. In other words, the company is only listed as a piece of data in journalistic coverage of other things. The company has not been the subject of reliable media coverage in its own right, which is required for both WP:NCOMPANY and WP:NMUSICOTHER. Everything specifically dedicated to the company really is a primary source and self-promotional at best. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry, what doomsdayer writes is entirely wrong. The company is explicitly referred to in the independent sources used in the article. If a release is reviewed, naturally the artist is mentioned too, but it is just as obvious that the release would not exist had the company not released it. Not a single source is "self promotion" or "primary" (like what, the New York Times?). Relevant industry awards are stated and sourced correctly. This label has been repeatedly in readers' polls, which should close the discussion right away. WP articles are not required to quote all available relevant sources, only that whatever is stated in the article must be sourced correctly, which is the case here. Furthermore the label is not identical with Stefan Goldmann since multiple artists release there and he is not the sole owner either. I'd really appreciate if serious statements were presented instead of distortions of WP policies. If you claim things like "primary", be specific about it. Thanks.Planetdust (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - You can't vote twice, but here is an analysis of the article's sources as they currently stand.
1. Traxsource is not an objective introduction to the label, given frequent puffery like "catchy razor blade brand", "extreme focus on artistic quality", "highly individual musical expression" and a constant parade of others that would never be used by someone writing reliably and independently. Purely promotional language from the inside.
2. Interview with F. Johnassen in which Macro is only mentioned briefly.
3. Review of F. Goldmann release in which Macro is simply listed as the label.
4. Unknown because I do not have a subscription, but the article's title indicates another review of someone's album in which Macro is likely to be mentioned briefly as the label.
5. Interview with Elektro Guzzi in which their signing with Macro is discussed briefly.
6. Feature article on P. Crowley in which Macro is not mentioned at all. Yes this is reliable New York Times article, but it is not about the company.
7. List of participants at an awards ceremony, in which Macro is merely listed as the label for two nominees.
8. This one might actually help a bit: Links to several feature stories on Stefan Goldmann, but every one of them is about his larger music career and his ownership of Macro is only mentioned briefly.
9-13: Five different year-end charts from various magazines in which Macro releases were listed, but the musicians get recognized by critics in such lists, not record labels.
All of these (except #1), whether reliable or not, are about musicians and releases that are on Macro but not about Macro itself. This does not qualify for WP:NMUSICOTHER which is clearly about "Composers and performers" (first line) and not companies. A record label needs to satisfy the requirements at WP:NCOMPANY, and more specifically its sub-guideline WP:CORPDEPTH requires significant coverage which is not demonstrated by the sources currently in the article, and nobody else in this debate has found anything more. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Stefan Goldmann, it's this guy's boutique label, stand alone article unwarranted, it's a single paragraph, exists solely for promotional purposes. Acousmana (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • doomsdayer: You keep making up criteria that have no base in guidelines. Not one of the sources is "primary", as you previously claimed. What language independent sources chose is irrelevant here as long as they state the facts which they are the sources for. Where did you find that catchy language by an independent media outlet disqualifies the information of the year a company has been founded in? Most sources here state facts such as year founded, ownership, the nature of the music released ("symphonic") etc. The same goes for the awards & polls lists – it is irrelevant that such a particular source "merely" mentions the label briefly. What does matter is establishing that a label's releases are included in such industry awards lists. In your examination of sources above you omit that we are looking at double sourcing of the PDSK award: one is the list of nominations at the award's granting organisation official website, the other is an independent press article covering a nomination. There are more awards nominations for this label, but the point in the article was to source that such nominations exist at all, which for most labels isn't the case.
If you cared to compare to similar techno labels' articles on WP, you'd find that this article is exceptionally well sourced for every single point it makes. Re: Acousmana: It is also not "Stefan Goldmann's boutique label" (where's that a disqualifying criterion in any WP guideline?), since it has released music by 20+ different artists, some of which leading media outlets beyond music press – such as the New York Times, Der Spiegel etc – have deemed worthy of being featured extensively. Since the label is forming those releases by selecting the music, deciding on design and presentation, commissioning remixes and mastering, a review of a release is absolutely about the label's work. By the same logic a feature about a release is only about the release, but not about the artist. I've also added two additional features about the label to the article. – – This is an obviously unwarranted deletion. Close the discussion and move on to something meaningful. Thanks.Planetdust (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Your vested interest in this company is sticking our like a sore thumb no matter how much you bludgeon this discussion with desperate logical overreach. So much so that you don't even know who you're arguing with. The term "Boutique label" was used by Acousmana, not me. "Catchy" was used by Traxsource and I merely quoted it. No further comment, as I will take your advice to "move on to something meaningful", more so than Macro Recordings. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'boutique label' simply means independent, it's run by Goldman, my guess is we have a COI here, and perhaps the individual simply hasn't read WP:PROMO, ultimately this is SEO at work, nothing else, trying to distinguish itself from the zillion other Berlin techno labels. Acousmana (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus. Yes, I have a "vested interest" in protecting my work in WP articles (I've researched & added multiple sources since the deletion discussion was opened) from sloppily argued deletion attempts by people who relentlessly and repeatedly misrepresent both, WP guidelines and the facts relevant to the article. Several statements in, in which both Doomsdayer & Acousmana failed to support their contrafactual assessments or evaluate the current state of the article, they've moved down to ad hominem insinuations instead. This says it all, really.
I'll sum up: the article is very well sourced. Its subject is well covered by multiple independent and relevant sources. The label's artists and releases are featured in leading media well beyond the music industry and multiple award nominations as well as readers' poll entries all show this is a notable subject.
Deletion is clearly unjustified. 7 days are over, no consensus on deletion has formed: admins, pls close discussion. Thanks everybody.Planetdust (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Entirely wrong: NOT ONE source is merely or predominantly "based on press releases" or "announcements" except for award nominations, by the award granting organizations / the media whose polls we're looking at – not by any representative of the label. Why those are included in the sources has been stated above (What better source for who's been nominated or voted into a poll than the media that publishes these?), BUT an independent source is quoted right next to the one for the awards too. ::Why notability is established has been reiterated above in a way that is beyond clear – also, there are TWO in depth articles focused on the company in the sources (WP:CORPDEPTH). There are no primary sources, and WP:ORGIND is fully met. Please check sources before pointing to guidelines here. Thanks. I repeat: no consensusPlanetdust (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Response Looked again. I should have said "based on interviews with company execs" and "discussing the music not the company". There's often a difficulty with organizations that are, essentially, entirely associated with a person or persons and this tends to effect "artistic" led companies such as record labels and even architects. You have to ask yourself, which is notable, the company or the people. Which is what I see in this case. If the topic is about the company (as it is here, the topic is Macro Recordings), then we want a reference that provides in-depth information *about the company* and not about the products and containing "Independent Content". None of those references meet the criteria. HighKing++ 12:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus Unfortunately "delete" votes have been added recently which do not appear to engage with the actual article and its sources anymore. It seems this discussion has degenerated into a sad personal quarrel between two editors. The discussion should have been closed a while ago. Several reliable and independent sources have been added to the article recently, enough of which cover the company itself in some depth (specifically Ref 3 & 7 – see WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:MULTSOURCES for criteria). I could not identify any sources authored by employees / artists of the company (WP:IS). Ref 1 should be replaced by a better source (it appears to be based on a PR text by a distributor), but that is not a reason for arguing deletion of the entire article. Most of the rest isn't trivial or in passing either (WP:SIGCOV). I tend to agree that awards/polls are significant for company relevance itself (particularly Ref 11 & 12). Repeated invoking of WP:PROMO in the discussion similarly appears to not be based on the actual article, which has no promotional content / WP:PUFFERY. The company is associated with several artists who have individual WP articles and I see more value in having an article which outlines the context of a record label than having to search through another musician's biography (who happens to be part-owner of the company) which would be the case if redirected.
The "delete" votes before Feb 25 were given before most of the current sources were added. The "delete" votes since don't appear to take the new sources into consideration and tend to give blanket statements without elaborating on their assessments. Artur Berkut (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Changes to sources have been made – ref ## given above by Artur Berkut & Doomsdayer may not match current ref ##.Planetdust (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment– Is the nomination of Villa Kamogawa for deletion by Acousmana, instead of, say, French & American Academy in Rome, some sort of personal attack on articles I've created? – WP:VVT. Cos someone genuinely interested in the topic HERE would have looked into the sources & revised previously touted statements re: WP:PROMO etc, instead of maliciously opening deletion discussion specifically to tie up editors into multiple disputes at once – WP:VD. Just asking. One might also want to look into the curious lockstep in the timing of comments by Acousmana & Doomsdayer520. A response time of over a day, then both drop comments along the same lines within minutes – WP:CANVASS. And again: attempts at discrediting other editors instead of assessment of the notability in question. The comments you both posted since Feb 23 pretty much look like trolling. No substance. –––––– Another question: what was wrong with moving towards closure after 7 days? I believe that's what the guideline says? If I was wrong, pls let me know the relevant guideline. Planetdust (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
there was an apparent COI, and evidence of WP:SOAP, inquiry lead to another example of a stub, that appeared to be insufficiency notable, lacked quality sources, and had been seeded with a link to suspected COI article. There are other examples, but not all are as egregious. Acousmana (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Planetdust: I prefer to assume good faith but you sure are making it tough. I said far above that I had no further comment, but now there is an accusation against me. (A) Acousmana and I made comments here within a few minutes of each other, which could be an evil conspiracy or it could be nothing but a coincidence. A coincidence is not proof. (B) Discussions like this can only be closed by an Administrator, or in the event of a purely uncontroversial matter, by an uninvolved editor. Go to Wikipedia:Closing discussions and read sections 3-4 carefully. (C) Since you are a relatively new Wikipedia editor, you could take the opportunity to learn about WP guidelines and admit that more experienced editors have wisdom that could be useful. Or you could spew haphazard accusations. (D) None of this has made Macro Recordings any more notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Two editors, Acousmana and yourself, act in perfect unison on 2 articles: The same style of manipulation of the discussion, blanket discrediting and acting as if clearly stated things have never been written. The presence of multiple independent, third party sources are called "primary or promotional" without a speck of evidence. This is repeated blatantly and against better knowledge, probably in the hope of manipulating other editors. I have no problem admitting errors and learning in the process. You are right re: (B) – apologies, won't happen again. I've done quite a bit of work in response to justified criticism of articles/sources. You might be more frequent editors, but two ppl have repeatedly called you out on your refusal to actually engage with the article in this discussion (before & after you claimed to absent yourself). In the meantime all you two do is spending significant effort on trying to discredit other editors and embroil them in further discussions (solely selected for this purpose). Even in your latest comment you couldn't refrain from trying to manipulate the state of establishing notability here. I prefer to assume good faith but you sure are making it tough. Planetdust (talk) 09:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:BLUDGEON. You've had your say. Let others have their's. HighKing++ 12:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Rob Young: “Stefan Goldmann – Close to the edit”, WIRE Magazine, #314, April 2010
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/Macro_Recordings&oldid=1009635144"