Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Wisconsin

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Wisconsin. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Wisconsin|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Wisconsin. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Wisconsin

Philip Krejcarek

Philip Krejcarek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiography of an apparently non-notable retired photography teacher. No in-depth secondary sources, and his awards for photography and teaching do not seem to be significant ones. Belbury (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Stetina

AfDs for this article:
Troy Stetina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I nominated this before but it was closed as no consensus since there were no other participates. Same reasoning as before applies: fails WP:MUSICBIO and quite promotional. Can’t find any in-depth sources on the subject. The cited Washington Post article [1] is about the subject’s father, Wayne Stetina. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Indiana, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Delate. I suggest that, if nobody comes to support it, it should be considered as a prod. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. This subject is not notable enough for an article. Qflib (talk) 03:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To be notable through publishing works on how to play guitar, we would need in-depth published reviews of those works, and I don't see them. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep on a hunch (i.e., easily overruled). Coverage is basically blog and genre-magazine style, which needs a lot to add up to notability, but there is a lot out there (even discounting some that seem more like PR/Press-release interview type). Head of department (conservatories often don't have traditional academic ranks) but of a small department. Each part of his career adds up to slightly less than the relevant notability guideline, but together they peek just over the edge for me. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Any non-blog, non-PR sources you would like to share? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is well known in the guitar community and among musicians for his instruction releases. The problem is that this article is poorly sourced so I can see why it attracts a deletion nom. I know that his Left-Handed Guitar: The Complete Method by Stetina, Troy (2001) is quite popular. Yes of course, it takes more than good sales. His Fretboard Mastery was very popular too. He's had articles about him in various guitar mags both paper and online. The Guitarist magazine March 1993 is one. He had article beside Dominic Miller and Tony Zemaitis as you can see. The Guitar Noise website which is a huge go-to source for axmen and axeladies refers to Stetina as an "internationally recognized guitarist and music educator". There's others too but I don't want to get too caught up with this one. Further info below
    * This is from the magazine, Modern Drummer, September 1993 - Page 106 SPEED AND THRASH METAL DRUM METHOD by Troy Stetina and Charlie Busher.
    * And there's an article by Stetina published in Guitar One, Volume 9, No 2 February 2006 - Page 176 RETURN OF THE SHRED Come Together Two Essential Hybrid Scales
    There's more but searching gets flooded with the dozens of releases he has had put out. Karl Twist (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those two books on Amazon have about 200 reviews each. This one is ranked 16,000+ in Music Instruction & Study. By no stretch of the imagination are these "popular" books and they don't contribute to notability.
    • Is this an article he wrote?
    • 1) The Guitar Noise website seems to be just a group blog about how to play the guitar. 2) The link you gave is just him responding to someone else's comment. That "internationally recognized" line is a promotional line he wrote himself (as per his own website).
    • The two articles in Modern Drummer and Guitar one are articles written by Stetina not articles about Stetina. They don't contribute to notability. You would need to find in-depth articles about Stetina.
    Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the Amazon books have more reviews than releases by so-called main-stream artists. They do appear to be quite popular! And I wasn't trying to use them as proof of notability. Just to give an idea of what the guy's exposure is. Somebody in Germany must have heard of him, there's a German Wikipedia article (needs work) See here.
    Forget the Guitar Noise one, that wasn't the one I meant to put in. Sorry. It was another online music news source. I have to try and remember. There was also a reliable source good size review on that I thought I had put in but for the life of me it's vanished. I went back though the page history and it isn't there. Maybe I thought I did. Perhaps it was on notepad, and I closed it before I had edited it in. It was similar to the Fret 12 review but not related to the sale of the product. The Modern Drummer (if it isn't about him) and Guitar One still show his profile. They are well-respected and notable publications. Well, there's no article page for Guitar One yet.

    The articles below are relaible,

    Karl Twist (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but almost all of those sources are interviews with the subject. Interviews are considered primary sources and they don’t contribute to notability. The only non-interview source in there is the Journal Times article. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello again Dr. Swag Lord . Well actually the first part of the OnMilwaukee article is not interview. The subject was researched (as it's the normal procedure) before the interview was conducted. And if considered primary, it's not like it's from the subject's own site anyway. Yes, I understand that primary sources and sources related to the subject themselves cannot be used to support content in a page. By that's not what we're looking at. We're looking at the status of the subject and the reliable sources that support the assertion that he is a notable person. The Maximum Ink is similar. Well, the first 196 worlds / 15 sentences (not including the title) are about him and not by him. The interview is secondary. There are two Journal Times articles. Then there's the Modern Drummer article by Matt Pieken about his book-cd combo, Speed and Thrash Metal Drum Method that he did with Charlie Bushor. It's about his work, not written by him.

    Going on what user Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert said earlier with "together they peek just over the edge", well with what I've come up with, the interviews by respected news sources etc., his contributions to major music magazines etc., collectively they well and truly sit on top of the table. And the Modern Drummer review proves it more. And this below, a C&P of what I edited into the article page,

    According to La Scena Musicale, Stetina was booked along with Leo Kottke, Antoine Dufour, Ana Vidovic, and Jonathan Kreisberg to appear at the Wilson Center Guitar Competition & Festival which ran from August 13 to 15, 2015, at the Sharon Lynne Wilson Center for the Arts. La Scena Musicale, 3 August 2015 - International Guitar Legends Headlining Wilson Center Guitar Competition & Festival: 2015 Artists include Leo Kottke, Antoine Dufour, Ana Vidovic, Jonathan Kreisberg, Troy Stetina

    It's obvious when Stetina is mentioned in the same headline such as these premier artists, he's well and widely known in various fields and notable. His volume of work speaks for itself, especially when artists such as Mark Tremonti, Michael Angelo Batio, Bill Peck, and Eric Friedman appear on Troy Stetina: The Sound and the Story etc. etc.. For him not to be notable would be an exception to the rule.

    Karl Twist (talk) 06:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Modern Drummer article is a short review of one of Stetina’s books. It has no in-depth content of the subject’s life or activities.
    • Please note, the article in La Scena Musicale is an example of WP:SPONSORED content. At the bottom of the article it states: “LSM Newswire is La Scena's Newswire service. Organizations can post a press release on our website for a fee. See the media kit at our advertising page at https://myscena.org/advertising”. Since that is an ad paid for by the band it is not RS and does not add to notability.
    • You say there’s two Journal Times articles, but you linked to the same one twice.
    • Please take a look at WP:NOTINHERITED. Just because the subject has been associated with notable individuals does not make him notable himself.
    Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On a further note, “metalshockfinland.com” and “guitariste-metal.fris” are certainly not RSs (obviously blog sources). Also, Maximum Ink seems WP:QS at best. There’s no published editorial board, no published editorial policies. Additionally, it’s quite suspicious that the article links to the Wikipedia page of Tony Stetina and links to places where you can purchase Stetina’s CD (seems pretty promotional to me). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the Modern Drummer review isn't what I would call short. It's an acceptable size. It's not supposed to be about an "in-depth content of the subject’s life or activities". It's a review of his work.
    • Ok if one of them such as La Scena Musicale is an example of WP:SPONSORED content. There's enough of the other! And as I mentioned with Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert saying "but together they peek just over the edge for me", I go further and say there's enough reliable stuff to sit him on top of the table!
    • Sorry my bad about the Journal Times. Yes, it was one article. There was the additional updated page.
    • Well the WP:NOTINHERITED would be the card to pull out if there were no other good supporting info about him. But thankfully there is! The point I made about him being associated with notable individuals was that he is regarded as prominent.
    • “metalshockfinland.com” and “guitariste-metal.fris” are possibly blog type in format. But the first one has been used to reference around fifty+ pages here, (most of them about heavy metal no surprise) and is a respected source of info.
    • Nothing suspicious or promotional about the German page for Troy Stetina. Because he's been so prolific with his published works, the searches get flooded with them and for someone who has German as a first language and English as second, this is how a page would be likely to add up. I'm not going to make any assertions about lazy editing because I'm not going to judge an editor's ability. I'd just go with the language thing.
      Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well since the topic of this article is Troy Stetina, the Modern Dummer review fails WP:SIGCOV. There’s no material about Stetina specifically. If you really think metal shock Finland is an RS, then I think I’ll open up a discussion on RSN. Also, I never mentioned the German Wikipedia page—I was referencing the Maximum Ink article that has a link at the bottom directing us to Stetina’s en WP page. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I opened a RSN discussion on the above source: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#metalshockfinland Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin, Even though I believe there's enough on Troy Stetina to warrant a keep, could I ask please that if the consensus eventually leans towards a deletion, you might consider redirecting rather than deleting? There are a number of possibilities. One would be Mark Tremonti who has a historical and ongoing musical association with Stetina. There was already a mention of him there on the page. I have also done a bit more. There's other content that would eventually go in there as per the normal growth of an article. This is regardless of a deletion or not. If in the event of a deletion consideration, that would probably be the best. Perhaps if the Guitar One article was created, that would be another one as Stetina was involved with the magazine for some time as a writer and contributor. Then there could be his brothers Dale and Wayne where a paragraph could be. They're only stubs at the moment. With a re-direct, the history can be preserved which IMO is always a good thing.
    I would like to do more to fix the subject's page as it is a mess. Sadly, my time is limited and I am neglecting other things. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't see a consensus yet and different assessments of the existing sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guillaume Besse (entrepreneur)

Guillaume Besse (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think the notability criteria has been met. The article was created and primarily written by an apparent pair of sockpuppet COI editors: Shoushanne and Santa monique. They were focused mainly on Carole Bienaimé, whose article identifies her as married to Besse. Santa monique also uploaded the photos of Bienaimé. Risedemise (talk) 11:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Brown (businessperson)

Matthew Brown (businessperson) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP1E, WP:UPE, WP:RUMOR - of all the things to be notable for, I think the oddest thing about this fellow is that his main claim to notability is *not* investing in Virgin Orbit. The only coverage is rumor mill stuff churned out around the time of Virgin Orbit's fall, and the deal never closed - they liquidated around 2 months after these stories were put out. BrigadierG (talk) 13:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Texas. BrigadierG (talk) 13:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hawaii and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Probably a COI creation, I checked a number of references and very little that is said in the article is true/verifiable. He specifically did NOT fund Virgin Orbit, and did NOT consult with UC Berkeley. He actually seems to be a bit (or more than a bit) of a con man, making absurd claims. From the Quartz article: "Halsey said Brown told him he started his career as a teenage tech entrepreneur working with Mark Zuckerberg and the Winklevoss brothers before selling a company to Salesforce. Then, while a 19-year-old enrolled at TCU, Brown won an executive position and, shortly thereafter, the top job at a Texas family office managing $6 billion in assets. He advised the Obama White House and the famed investor T. Boone Pickens on renewable energy." None of this can be verified. Lamona (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I have reduced the article to verifiable facts and removed non-reliable sources. It may be easier now to assess. Lamona (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It appears the user making the latest edits (including odd "verification required" tags on locations where the subject works, which are clearly on the official Website of the companies as well as Google Maps) is closely related to the Quartz article’s author, a COI. Multiple edits mischaracterize the article, for instance the latest, where the edit mischaracterized the Quartz perceived “hit piece" by adding “(this was denied by the institution [10]),” when in fact the article said “the lab told Quartz he had no official role. But its director, professor Daniel Kammen, said he did recognize Brown from open meetings at the lab." That comment by the lab’s director could easily render one to be a Consultant. The Quartz writer fails to substantiate any stance with the DOE/Biden Administration/DOD consultantships, therefore such can be, in theory, deemed true, especially given his credit in a DOE Energy Efficiency handbook (sourced[1]). The same would apply for the subject’s CNBC comments (sourced). Further, the Quartz article mentions Energent “has never filed 13F reports required by money managers with more than $100 million in public securities” when in the very next sentence the author quotes PitchBook which clearly states Energent never has had and has public securities. Further, the article alleges litigation but fails to mention that the subject’s firm was the Plaintiff in the Action and the judge in the counter-suit suggested that, in court filings, the Defendant’s claims (American Express transfers/Plantiff putting the wind farm in receivership) “weren’t worth a tinker’s damn.” (Notably, this wind farm was one of the more modern CFIUS-involved pieces of litigation: "Order Signed by the President of the United States," - then President Obama - a notable acquisition, Huerfano River Wind Farm, by the subject. This is important as it supports the subjects preference for SPVs, as he calls them, but this one was leaked as due to the CFIUS nature.) The law firm the subject of the article used, upon research, looks to be settlement counsel, but the Quartz article author obfuscated the true facts of the single case the author wrote about, and wrote a less than favorable, arguably factually incorrect, article. The Quartz article, instead, seems to favor the subject more than hurt the subject given the lack of denials for comment, outside of Pickens which quotes more-or-less his right-hand man/friend, regarding the subject’s claims (Facebook, family office, etc.), but also shows a clear bias against the subject, again a potential COI, and, again, a potentially from the author of the Quartz article. Regardless, this objection is not about Quartz (the subject's PPP loans and "high-rolling entrepreneur who spends time in Hawaii and travels by private jet to visit factories building high-altitude blimps and satellite launchers" are irrelevant), but the validity of the subject, and if he maintains the ownership in the companies which PitchBook et al. suggest is accurate, this is an objection for deletion and motion to keep, at least for now. FourDoorsOneExit (talk) 06:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You, above, it would be best for you to return and sign your edit here. (I thought if one failed it would happened automatically - obviously not.) Some of your statements here are hard to accept. For example: "“(this was denied by the institution [10]),” when in fact the article said “the lab told Quartz he had no official role. But its director, professor Daniel Kammen, said he did recognize Brown from open meetings at the lab." That comment by the lab’s director could easily render one to be a Consultant." No, being recognized in a meeting does not make one a consultant. For other statements here, the Wikipedia standard is to cite reliable sources, so if you have sources for your information you need to add them to the article. Owning one or more companies does not automatically make one notable for a Wikipedia article. Use of sources like facebook or the company web page will not support ones' claims; the reliable sources must be independent of the person. Lamona (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made the edit with the signature block. You appear lost in the weeds as to my comments. The article never mentioned "one meeting" nor did Dr. Kammen (though you did so as to paint a false narrative). In fact, Dr. Kammen said "open meetings," plural. The subject is also a contributor in the Guide authored by the lab's director. Having attended public meetings, as the director said, and assisting in academic/legislative papers would suggest a "consultant" and/or "contributor." The subject clearly had a significant role, but also clearly not as significant as a C-Suite, per se. I agree with the comment of owning one or more companies does not "automatically make one notable for a Wikipedia article," but that is not at dispute here. The comment of Facebook or the companies Websites was to address a seemingly zealous editor tagging where the companies are located when they clearly, and specifically, passed Facebook and Google Maps authentication (as well as their location being on their Website). This goes back, again, to a COI editor flagging meaningless tags. My vote still stands, for now. This could all turn to dust if the subject of the Wikipedia article turns to dust tomorrow, but for now it is worth notoriety. I vote "Keep." FourDoorsOneExit (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel compelled to note that the long paragraph above is the first edit made by FourDoorsOneExit. It is generally a good idea to become familiar with Wikipedia editing and policies before !voting at AfD. These discussions are usually heavy on policy, and that takes a while to absorb. You have now !voted "keep" twice, and only one !vote per user is allowed. I also think you do not know what "COI" means here. It is defined as "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." You can see more about this at WP:COI. The other advice I will give is WP:Civility. You can criticize the article but it's best to assume that everyone here is trying to make WP a good quality product.Lamona (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect the feedback and am familiar with AfD as well as COI, which is why I wrote the narrative above. I'm neither a friend, family, client etc. of the subject. I did not vote to "Keep" twice, just affirmed my vote. You and I stand aligned with making WP a good quality product. FourDoorsOneExit (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It is worthy, by nature, of the Virgin Orbit bankruptcy, the largest in the space industry. He clearly is involved in the industry and I suggest "Keeping."
    Are you the same editor as above? Both edits are unsigned. Lamona (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to Virgin Orbit perhaps if there's anything more to merge than what is already covered there. The sourcing establishes that his failed takeover bid is worth mentioning somewhere in Wikipedia but probably not that he is himself notable. --Here2rewrite (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having read all votes, he meets Wikipedia's minimum threshold but I suggest the original editor clean this up a little. 172.56.240.18 (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone can (and should) "clean up" articles on Wikipedia. If you see something that needs doing, go ahead. Also, determining the minimum for GNG is not based on the votes (although it's hard not to be influenced by them). It's based on the results of searches for sources. Everyone should do their own investigation, although sometimes someone comes through with enough found sources that we can all take advantage of their work. So far in this discussion new sources have not be revealed, however. Lamona (talk) 06:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comment Matt is a well known investor in Cali & the article meets notoriety. 172.56.179.101 (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Matt"? "notoriety"? and two IPs in a similar range. I hope we don't have WP:SOCKing going on here. That would greatly complicate what otherwise would be a pretty straight-forward AFD. Lamona (talk) 06:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep TiffanySwalwell (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UWSP Albertson Center for Learning Resources

UWSP Albertson Center for Learning Resources (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not written in an encyclopedic format and fails WP:GNG - all of the sources are primary. If kept, needs significant cleanup. Some of this information may be able to be merged elsewhere, but I'm not sure where. SportingFlyer T·C 19:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Back Porch Records

Back Porch Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NORG, was unable to find any significant coverage other than brief mentions. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Wisconsin. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. I'm confused as to why this was taken to AfD at all. The nominator initially redirected it to a list page of EMI sublabels, which I reverted because it was not subject to any discussion, nothing was merged, and the target had no information about the label. The nominator then immediately brought it to AfD, when the obvious thing to do would be to start a merge discussion; I mean, for Pete's sake, this label put out full lengths from people like Frank Black, Shannon McNally, Charlie Sexton, and John Hammond Jr., so of course we don't want a redlink here. Chubbles (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please remember to sign your comments and if you are proposing a Redirect or Merge, identify a target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Although the artists associated with Back Porch Records clearly pass the WP:NBASIC threshold, the label can't inherit that notability per WP:NOTINHERITED. I was able to find a couple mentions: Aspen Times and Billboard but those are just mentions. Seems like Back Porch Records itself might best be served as mentions on Universal Music and/or Virgin Records pages? MertenMerten (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Recent !votes for delete have surfaced (the NOTINHERITED concerns are misplaced, I think; there's no reason for us to cover a label but for the fact that it published notable artists), but why would we prefer a redlink over a merge to the parent label? Chubbles (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. If this article were Merged, what would be the Merge target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Probably the best merge target would be Narada Records, its parent label for most of its run, per [2] (note that this source calls it "a major force in roots and Americana music styles"). Chubbles (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chubbles, Narada Records is a redirect. If you use one of the commonly used script, you'd see this because it's in a green font color. Liz Read! Talk! 03:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its target, Narada Productions, would be the target then. In practice, people often call this label Narada Records. Chubbles (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I find WP:NOTINHERITED to be a major detriment to Wikipedia as a whole. We cannot limit the scope of knowledge in such a way and consider this project complete. This is a strong keep. Fireandflames2 (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Total lack of SIRS coverage. There are good reasons why companies need to meet NORG. JoelleJay (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is redlinking this title preferable when there is a clear merge target? (Leaving aside that the label certainly meets WP:MUSIC's sense of an important indie label.) Chubbles (talk) 06:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Narada Productions per above. Special:WhatLinksHere/Back_Porch_Records indicates that this should remain bluelinked, but there's a lack of sigcov for a keep. (It's possible that a future target could be an article for Back Porch Record's founder Ken Pedersen, though there aren't enough sources visible to establish GNG currently). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 07:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PACE_financing#cite_ref-8
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Wisconsin&oldid=1229283474"