Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Jordan 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 Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Jordan Records

nn local record label, prod removed to add sources in good faith, but sources do not support notability either per N or per MUSIC. All the current sources show not only no coverage outside of the Cincinnati area, but also no real significant coverage within the area: out of 10 citations, 2 are from the label site, 4 are ads for upcoming shows in a "coming attractions" column on a once every two years basis, and 1 is a survey. The rest are articles on a pay site that only shows the first few sentences, so depth of coverage cannot be established. The article states the label has 19 album releases in 12 years; not only is that a very low number for a supposedly notable label (which has no press on these albums on-site at all), but there is no way to verify any of that because the label doesn't maintain a list on-site, nor do any of the artists linked off the site. Notability by having a famous artist is not established - of those artists not redlinked, Katie Reider survived AfD as "no consensus" (and was created in the wake of her death, not during her career) Wild Carrot (music group) is notable only because being named Cultural Ambassadors to Chile in 2006 can be considered such (but has nothing ot do with the label), Janet Pressley is notable for having founded the label (and if the label isn't notable, neither is she), and the others are prodded for no assertion of notability. There is also a case of what I would call "false loop notability": the artist and label articles create blue links for each other (which would superficially show notability for the label and vice versa), but the artist articles only say that the artist released albums on that label, and the label article only has a list of the albums. The shows and events listed would be notable if they were long-term, but they are written to imply a standing that is not there - the Spring Festival was a one-off show, as was the Christmas Show (the only press for which is the aforementioned show ads - there are no performance reviews). They only featured a few artists, and was nothing more that what a local nn booker could do. The Living Room Shows are quite literally two artists in someone's living room. The quote-unquote "big" event, The Blue Jordan Festival, is written to say "ran circa 1998-2001", so there's no available press (not even solid dates!) aside from coming attractions notes. I know these are suppposed to be short, but it takes some digging to show the extent of the supposed notability imparted by the sources. Even those events that might make the article borderline notable have no real coverage, but are blown up out of trivial mentions. MSJapan (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: David Wolfenberger is also an artist on this label, although it appears his notabliliy is also now being indicated as questionable. -MrFizyx (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did the rewrite of this. If feel the current article is NPOV and the statements made are factual and generally well sourced. I think the festivals and other events created by this group of musicians are notable and clearly a subject of published comment. It is true that only a very small amount of music on the label has had national reviews (Dirty Linen, PasteMusic.com). while being thoroughly covered in the local press (Cincinnati Post, Cincinnati Enquirer, CityBeat) It wouldn't be insane to argue notability either way. The relevant guideline here is: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found." I feel enough reliable independent sources have been found (see on-going talk page discussions for others) and I do not promote a "false loop of notability." -MrFizyx (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —MrFizyx (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —MrFizyx (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. —MrFizyx (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Adequately sourced. Seems sufficiently notable. I don't see any benefit to the project from deleting this.--Michig (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2008 (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.