Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro-Gravity Records

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 delete all. Consensus was that all articles failed to meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC. The closest to being a keep was Distorted Penguins, which had only once received non-trivial coverage in a reliable, published work independent from the subject: [1]

[edit] Pro-Gravity Records

Pro-Gravity Records (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Record label from western Maryland. No evidence of notability, no independent sources. Same author is busily creating articles on this label's affiliated acts and their albums, all of which have the same notability problems. Listing them below. NawlinWiki 16:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Also including:

  • Midnight:30
  • Midnight: 30 (duplicate)
  • Plan:Be
  • Plan: Be (duplicate)
  • Truce II Headrush
  • The Enigmatic
  • List of musical artists from Cumberland, Maryland
  • Distorted Penguins
  • 200 North
  • CMD Represent, Vol. 1
  • Billiam Rockwell
  • Watching the World Die
  • Antiform (album)
  • My argument

Here is the gist of my argument, as explained to "NawlinWiki" on that admin's talk page:

  • Hey I dont' know if this is the correct way to communicate with you or not, but here it is ... I mean, I see what you're saying about Ice Records vs. Pro-Gravity and all. But as far as noteworthiness goes, again, it's an Indpendent label with about 8 acts and 10 albums -- with 4 albums in the pipeline. Yeah, it's only artists around Allegany County, Maryland, but why does that in and of itself make it not worthy of inclusion? I can produce articles on most of the bands on the list from the local paper (some aren't accessible on the Website any longer), but I have a feeling those articles won't be up to snuff either. I mean, Pro-Gravity is legit (disclaimer: I am not Pro-Gravity records) ... people around here know who they are, and it's who everyone tries to release an album with. They're recognized within a good two to three hours of here and respected for their DIY/Indie footprint.

It seems as though if an artist isn't on a major record label or doesn't release a song that charts, they're going to be deleted, which (IMHO) flies in the face of what Wikipedia is about.

I am obviously coming from an angle of trying to increase the presence of musicians from Allegany County/Cumberland, Maryland on the Web, including Wiki, so I wont' deny that, but I feel almost being discriminated against b/c we're from a smaller area. Our local newspaper barely pays attention to us, though articles do exist on most of the bands on this list. And we're three hours from any MAJOR newspapers (DC, Baltimore, Pittsburgh) so there's nothing in those papers but rewritten press releases. These aren't bands that started yesterday or exist only in the artists' minds ... 200 North has played in Europe, Distorted Penguins plays (literally) hundreds of shows a year as far away as Oregon. I'm not putting up articles on the smaller players in our area. But, as a reperesentation of an independent label that is making it through Word of Mouth and via the Web and DIY ethic, Pro-Gravity Records, its artists and the musicians of Cumberland/Allegany County are certainly noteworthy.

Please tell me what I must do to save these articles from deletion. Lawofone 17:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Some links: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

These are just the first few I could track down. There are plenty more. Lawofone 18:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Pro-Gravity Records as lacking in reliable sources and likely notability; neutral on the bands right now until I've got more time to look into them one by one. to Lawofone: The label needs to have been covered in multiple non-trivial reliable sources to define its notability - everything needs to be sourced to be verifiable. The bands need to be able to meet the criteria at WP:MUSIC for articles. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • After looking over the bands, deleteall but Distorted Penguins as failing WP:MUSIC and WP:RS, as well as the albums for each; neutral on Distorted Penguins, with a lean towards a weak keep if someone turns up non-trivial independent mentions of their national touring as well as more reliable sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless, of course, the author has some verifiable sources that show that this label or related acts are notable as required by WP criteria. —Travistalk 22:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I"ve got what I feel is the necessary references, which I'll add after voting is finished (assuming it survives). Lawofone 17:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Add them right away, as additional sources will make a difference on the opinions being expressed here. If you wait, the articles are all likely to be deleted - the sources won't do a whole lot afterwards... Tony Fox (arf!) 18:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm in 3 of the bands on this label. I have no idea why someone would even dispute this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briannorth (talk • contribs) 07:15, 29 July 2007— Briannorth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep This is silly. The label itself is legitimate as are the associated bands. Both print and web sources have been produced to prove this. What's the problem? Cdadamly 17:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • How are independent newspaper articles not acceptable? Are the guidelines tougher to get a band on here than, oh, anything else in Wikipedia? If there was no independent verification, then I'd agree, but they've met the criteria.
  • Local newspapers write about local bands. I've done it. When magazines, newspapers, websites, etc. write about bands from outside their local area, that indicates they're developing notability outside of their home town, and that moves them towards meeting the music guidelines. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Not that there is no notability for these acts outside their hometown, but you're basically admitting that this evidence proves that they are notable there. From what I see in the guidelines, they only require notability, not world-wide notability nor even national notability.Cdadamly 20:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Although we're definitely starting to go around in circles here. But how can these bands not get a page when this does? I'm in no way callign for that article's deletion, but I GUARANTEE these bands' pages will get more hits than Archibald Sturrock. What's the harm of giving a person out there who may hear of 200 North (or Distorted Penguins, or Pro-Gravity) from being able to go to Wikipedia and find information? I, for one, think it HEIGHTENS Wikipedia's standing for people to be able to find such information. I know that I mainly use Wikipedia to read about random, obscure tidbits. It tickles me to come here and find articles on such topics. That's when Wikipedia proves its value to me; not its ability to give me information on Britney Spears, but its ability to give me information on things like this. Lawofone 23:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid, generally. Especially when the article pointed to is of a person who has books written about him, holds a patent for a steam boiler improvement, invented the steam tender, managed a major railroad for years, etc. Nonetheless, because one article exists is not a good reason for another to exist; we still need those multiple reliable sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree; the existence of other, more trivial articles shows that certain articles are being singled out for some reason. Like the above example, the Tristate Zoological Park. Why aren't we discussing that article's deletion? Not that I think we should; there's room enough for both (and plenty more) on Wikipedia. Truce m3 11:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Generally, I think the notability standards are a bit overwrought and largely unnecessary. Major labels/groups/bands gain notoriety by having enough capital to promote product. This doesn’t necessarily make them notable in any meaningful sense of the word; and because a small label/group/band doesn’t have the ability to buy ‘notability’ in the way that better funded labels/groups/bands do makes them no less notable. I don’t see how there isn’t room enough for all. SKOOCH 16:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC) — SKOOCH (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep I think I basically agree with the above posts. Print/Web exists. Who cares if they're not big, they've met the criteria. I always side with keeping articles, not deleting them. Truce m3 17:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, I kind of resent being tagged as a single-use account or whatever. I've been on wikipedia for three or four years now. It's a cheap attempt to render my opinion irrelevant.
  • My apologies, then; your edit history under this account consists of seven edits outside of this debate, which leads to the assumption. Please remember to sign your posts.

Tony Fox (arf!) 20:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete all. The label seems to be marginally notable within the state of Maryland, but a detailed search finds very little in the way of reliable sources regarding the label and its bands. None of the acts seem to have ever charted on a major chart or done anything else that makes them pass WP:MUSIC. Most of the hits for the bands are MySpace and similar non-reliable pages. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 21:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, I must recall Cdadamly's point above: You allow that the label (and, by association, its acts) are notable in Maryland; notability guidelines do not indicate what level an act/label must be notable on, only that they must be notable. So ... Lawofone 17:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I had a couple minutes, so I found a small handful of references on the web. There are definitely more to be found. This was a cursory search.

Review of The Enigmaic by Truce II Headrush

Review of The Trend's self-titled album

Search for 200 North on this page for a review of WtWD

Review of 200 North/Esteem split at top of page

Also, according to the guidlines regarding notability, a band has to meet only one of the criteria, one of them being, "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable." Since Brendan Ekstrom, the guitarist from 200 North later went on to join This Day Forward and is now a member of Circa Survive, this should spare 200 North from deletion (and I would assume Pro-Gravity Records, the label that currently supports their 3 Song Demo and split with Esteem, as well.

Cdadamly 15:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

  • In addition, the criteria lists "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city," which should spare Midnight:30 and its derivitaves. I mean, Midnight:30, essentially IS Western Maryland's hip-hop scene. Again, being the representative of a LARGE local scene is not required, merely "of the local scene of a city." Midnight:30, and its derivatives, are the most prominent representatives of hip-hop within Allegany County and beyond, so they easily qualify. Lawofone 17:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The bulk of these articles fit our CSD G11 criteria if you ask me. Burntsauce 17:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Some of us are not quite as familiar with WikiAcronyms, so praytell, what does CSD G11 mean?
The above bands fall within the notability guidlines, as they have documentation showing them as notable (remember that "notability" is completely different from "popularity"). Even those contesting the inclusion of these articles have admitted that the bands are notable in Maryland, or at least in Western Maryland. Also, 200 North stands even more easily due to its ties to Circa Survive (a band that I challenge any of you to challenge the notability of). However, I note that this doesn't really matter. According to those same guidelines, we could argue the articles' inclusion or exclusion regardless of notability ("Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept.") This is especially troubling, not to mention a shakey basis for deletion, as there is a separate debate (started by CharlesGillingham) going on on the talk page for music notability
So, what types of sources are you actually looking for in order to call off this witch hunt? Give the editors who are currently working on these pages some real information on what you want, and we/they can provide it.
Editing is greatly preferred over deletion.
Cdadamly 18:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Verifiability is the most important policies in determining whether an article is suitable. We need verifiable reliable sources - articles that state these bands are prominent representatives of a notable style as mentioned above, that aren't trivial mentions; we need indications that there are people writing, in established publications that have an editorial policy of some note, articles that indicate the subjects of the articles are notable; in essence, we need proof that the claims in the articles are true. I haven't yet seen any independent references to the record label, nor to most of the bands, that make me feel WP:V or WP:MUSIC are satisfied. Anyhow, this is my last opinion on the matter, unless some firm references come forward; it's up to the closing administrator to decide. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Give me till Friday, and I can provide the information on Truce II Headrush and The Enigmatic -- they'll be in the paper then.

Independent review of 200 North / Esteem split CD

The band's first release was on Eulogy Recordings as verified by the following: [12] [13] [14], and Eulogy has also released albums by Dashboard Confessional, This Day Forward, and Unearth, all undeniabley notable bands.

Also, Brendan Ekstrom, guitarist from 200 North, went on to join This Day Forward and later, Circa Survive as documented here, here, and here.

Cdadamly 20:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Distorted Penguins

The fact that most of these articles are from local sources should not matter. They are independent sources.

Announcement of final show

Mention in letter to the editor from a Cumberland native living in TX

Mention in article on Frostburg State University compilation CD

Article on release of CMD Represent, Vol. 1 by Pre-Gravity, including references to Distorted Penguins

mention in letter to the editor regarding local radio

DC101 reference (the band is played on the Washington, DC station)

Announcement of Distorted Penguins show with Blues Traveler, Nine Days, and Mos Def

Cdadamly 21:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

    • At least we're fighting the good fight; when will the decision be made? Truce m3 22:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep 200 North, Distorted Penguins, Pro-Gravity

This is a virgin Wikipedia post/edit. I came across this page after reading an article pertaining to Pro-Gravity's most recent release:

Newspaper feature on Pro-Gravity album release

I don't have anything terribly new to add to this debate. The two potential bases for deletion seem to be reliable sources and notability. The link above provides yet another reliable source. Others have been furnished in previous posts. Simply put, verifiability does not seem to be an issue here. That leaves notability as a potential basis for deletion. I admit that I am a Wikipedia newbie; however, based on my perusal of the guidelines for music it seems clear that the Pro-Gravity label as well as several of the bands (200 North and Distorted Penguins in particular) satisfy at least one of the listed notability criteria. The Pro-Gravity label meets item 7 (most notable representative...of the local scene of the city) as since its inception the label has put out the vast majority of meaningful local records in the hip-hop, rock and indie genres. As noted in earlier posts, 200 North meets item 6 (Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable) while Distorted Penguins meets item 4 (have toured nationally).

Clearly, interesting questions lurk here regarding the appropriate geographic scope for notability in music. Under the current criteria, however, Pro-Gravity and the bands mentioned above should be kept. Perhaps the criteria should be revised to more clearly indicate the appropriate geographic scope for notability; however, this seems like a discussion that should take place at a higher level (i.e., elsewhere). Mrtrigonometrybedsheets 20:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Update -- Truce II Headrush article now has references. Working on the others. Lawofone 21:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete; what few sources there are in this article are self-publish or otherwise not reliable. Not notable. — Coren (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
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.