Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inner Ear

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. ✗plicit 00:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inner Ear

Inner Ear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged for notability for 9 years, fails WP:NCORP. It's a small record label that had an output of 30. Not to be confused with other labels of the same name. Geschichte (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Norway. Owen× ☎ 12:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Geschichte Surely you should bundle this AfD with Inner Ear albums discography? Mach61 (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:Delete - There are some very notable entries in the music canon with this name but this isn’t one of them. No independent coverage cited at all. WilsonP NYC (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge. The Discogs page cited by the nominator gives 30 releases, almost every one of which was put out by an artist of some note. That suggests the label meets WP:MUSIC's sense of one of the more important indies. However, a goodly number of them are by the founders of the label, the brothers Tore Johansen and Roger Johansen, both of whom, you'll note, have articles. So a merge makes some sense - but so does keeping, since the eventual redirect to one or the other musician awkwardly excludes the other, and so pragmatically a separate article kind of makes more sense. But leaving a redlink here is the worst possible conclusion. Chubbles (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I should have done more research before my vote, I made a mistake. The current article is thinly sourced but the label seems to clearly meet notability criteria and should be improved not deleted. WilsonP NYC (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete that the label may confer notability upon its artists in no way confers notability upon the label. We should never have articles on subjects which lack the secondary sourcing to grow beyond a directory entry, as this label does. Mach61 (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Discogs, last.fm and the usual musical sites that don't help notability. Besides things related to the actual inside of the human ear, there isn't anything about this record label. Dutch and Norwegian wiki articles have one source, as does this one, so no help there. Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and definitely needs to be moved if not. It differentiates from another article by one single capitalized letter. JM (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:NMUSIC. I looked at the results for searches like "Inner Ear" plateselskapet site:.no and virtually all the results are brief mentions in the context of reviews of specific albums released by the label. The best result was [1], an interview with Tore Johansen that contains a tiny bit of detail about the label itself -- but still far from meeting notability requirements. Jfire (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What is the advantage of voting delete here - to add a redlink, rather than redirecting interested users to information about the label's founders (whose notability is not under question)? Chubbles (talk) 07:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No link^[1] would be preferable, as there is no primary redirect target. Mach61 (talk) 08:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So...if there's one primary redirect target, we should link to that target, but if there's two primary redirect targets, we should eliminate the link altogether? That doesn't serve the user interested in the topic; it actively frustrates the process of getting to relevant information that this website is carrying about the topic in question. Chubbles (talk) 04:14, 6 February 2024 (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.