Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/625 Thrashcore

Source: 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 merge to Max Ward (drummer). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

"record label" would fall under organization/company as it is not a band, and this company lacks sufficiently wide breadth deep coverage to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Graywalls (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect. Found only trivial mentions here and here. My only qualm with redirecting to Max Ward (drummer) is that that article is also in pretty sorry shape, and only really scrapes by on notability through circular means (passes WP:NMUSIC as a member of 2 or more notable ensembles, but are those ensembles only notable because he's in them?) Kncny11 (shoot) 03:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment If it's a record label, I believe WP:NCORP, rather than WP:NBAND is the appropriate SNG to use. Graywalls (talk) 04:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I was referring to the notability of Max Ward under NMUSIC, not the label. Kncny11 (shoot) 14:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Ebullition Records or Max Ward (drummer). I disagree that NCORP is the correct guideline to apply, as I have argued repeatedly and at length elsewhere, but the label has at least a passing shot at meeting WP:MUSIC's sense of an important indie. In any case, it has at least five noteworthy bands that are all tied together by association with this label, and having a redlink here does not serve the user who wants to understand that connection. Upmerging to Ebullition, of which this was a subsidiary, is an option, as is merging into the Ward article, though I agree that it needs some sprucing up. Chubbles (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment I reviewed both redirect targets and they're both of highly questionable WP:GNG status. Notability is not built from association with notable people per WP:INHERITORG. WP:NMUSIC does not address recording labels/companies. These indie labels that fail to meet WP:NCORP fails to have enough notability to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC) Graywalls (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC) '[reply]
With all due respect, I couldn't disagree more with any of these comments. The only reason a record label is worth covering in an encyclopedia is its artistic output; citing NOTINHERITED is missing the point. We have no reason to cover a record label that does anything other than release noteworthy (i.e., notable) music and musicians; a label that passed GNG but didn't do that, in my opinion, may not need an article (e.g., EDGEOUT Records). WP:MUSIC does, in fact, have specific language suggesting a route to evaluating the notability of record labels, and we should prefer the input of subject experts in music on the notability of musical topics over business and organization experts, as we do for bands (which, were they not specifically excluded, unquestionably would meet CORP's guidelines, too). CORP neither is (by fiat) nor should be the holding standard, and certainly, Ebullition as a merge target is a noteworthy enough label to pass muster as an important indie label - if we don't have room for an article on that label, we have much bigger standard-of-inclusion problems than can be addressed in this specific discussion. Chubbles (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, and I see that you have already moved to have Ebullition deleted as well, so I guess I'll move on to fighting that battle over there. Chubbles (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet 05:05, 2 April 2021 (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.