Talk:Poptones

Untitled
This appears to be an advert for a non-notable label. I have not (yet) AfD'd but this probably needs a total rewrite. Irides cent 20:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

There are 250000 entries for Poptones on Google. The Hives sold millions and they released some brilliant Beta Band solo projects. It seems like a pretty notable label to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.242.47.103


 * Not debating that - although only one of the Hives' albums was actually on Poptones, and that was a compilation of material previously released on the Burning Heart label - but at the moment there's nothing in the article itself to warrant keeping it. As I said above, the reason I haven't AfD'd it is precisely because there's a potentially valid article on Poptones to be written. (McGee is certainly a notable figure & there's a lot of potentially interesting trivia such as the part-ownership by the Queen etc.) The article as it stands reads like two lines culled from a press release. Irides cent  15:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are letting personal opinion cloud what you decide is relevant. Culled from a press release? This has been a stub for years now. It seems to me that if it were advertising that it would be more self fronting. Anyways, I think your personal judgement is clouded which is a bad attitude to have with Wikipedia (judging that you are mentioning things that have happened 7years ago). Some acts that I've bought on Poptones as of late have got quite a following -- Cherrystones (DJ Shadow, Andy Votel and Weatherall cohort and street mixer who I discovered by reading a huge article about hiim in the Guardian), Viking Moses (part of the Devendra crew and when I was in france, I noticed that he had an eight page article in Liberation), Souls She Said (Icarus line side project) and am awaiting the Icarus Line on vinyl and Pete Fowler's Monsterism Series which is coming out oon the label. Plus, when you reckon what Alan has done for british music with Creation Records (Super Furry Animals, Oasis, Primals) -- basically changing the landscape of british music, the follow through label is worthy of Wikipedia just on that basis alone. Its a shame that you are letting personal opinion dampen Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.209.230.170


 * PS. I'm not the guy from above -- different guy or gal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.209.230.170


 * I'm not saying the page should be deleted!!! I've tagged it not because it needs deleting but because it needs expanding out. (What are the "things I mention that happened seven years ago", anyway? Aside from the tag I haven't made a single change to the article.) How exactly is that "letting personal opinion dampen Wikipedia"? And aren't you the one who previously blanked this article and replaced it with "poptones rulez for reel u freekz"? -  Irides cent  16:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I was being IRONIC! And yes, I realise that Wikipedia doesn't do irony. I was surfing for Cherrystones info and came across that and i thought your reasoning for marking it was being indie-schmindie in the discussion page -- non-notable? What the hell? I just get tired of the music pages being marked on Wikipedia on the basis on someone's personal opinion. I realise that if it was some DIY label that did one homemade 7inch -- fair enough -- but its just getting tiresome when people who don't know their music subject matter decide what should stay or go on Wikipedia. Its screwed up loads of pages music wise on here and its getting the point when I don't even bother to go to Wikipedia for music anymore. So I was showing my disappointment in textspeak. In a 'humourous' fashion. I prefer neutrality when it comes to Wikipedia. And your arguments all relate to Poptones events from 2000. Sorry I'm just passionate about Wikipedia and passionate about music!! Its like you are saying -- yeah that Steve Mason's Beta Band project was non-notable when it appeared in every magazine with great reviews! Grrr..
 * All fair enough - but the reason Wikipedia's like this, particularly with music, books etc is that the articles themselves have to say why the bands, people etc are notable, to stop it being flooded with spam - remember that most of the regular editors are using the 'random article' button to surf through looking for things to tidy up, and won't necessarily know anything about the UK indie scene. (BTW, yes I tidied up the articles on the individual Pipettes & am trying to knock the ridiculous six separate articles about Amelia Fletcher & Heavenly into some kind of shape - if you look at my edit history you'll also see in the last couple of days I've done the same for St Ann's Road railway station, a Robyn Hitchcock fanzine and the former Attorney General of Maine. Editing something doesn't necessarily mean I'm a fan of it!) - Irides cent  17:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)