Talk:Survival Records

Discussion moved here from User_talk:Graywalls
Hi Graywalls, Just curious as to why you replaced Survival Records with a redirect...? Nearly all the albums that were released by the label have their own Wikipedia pages. It's an important part of jazz history - see the sources that were cited in the article (the Wilmer book, DownBeat magazine, etc.) Thanks, Helen Puffer Thwait (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * , I looked at the sources. There was one source that was maybe sigcov, but others didn't seem like passing. Things like blogs don't count. So, I didn't feel it met WP:NCORP. Do you feel differently? Graywalls (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I see that there was some discussion related to this topic a while back.
 * WP:NCORP states: "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education... smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable." Given Rashied Ali's status as an important jazz drummer, I was looking at Survival Records in terms of its artistic value, rather than its status as a corporate entity.
 * Regarding the sources: Given that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" (WP:SIGCOV), I would think that discussion in the Val Wilmer book, which has been through multiple printings over the years, and articles in major jazz publications on the topic of the label (DownBeat ("The Durability Of Drummer Rashied Ali's Survival Records") and JazzTimes ("Survival Records Returns with New Jazz Releases")) would count. I don't see any citations that refer to blogs. (Perfect Sound Forever, despite its appearance, has been around for about 30 years, and seems to have a serious editorial policy [].) Please advise.
 * Shall I open a discussion and seek the opinion of other editors?
 * Helen Puffer Thwait (talk) 11:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , this kind of discussion really should be taking place on the article's talk page, because individual users' pages isn't where others go to look discussions about the article. Rashield Ali's importance as a Jazz drummer would be a different matter, because, per WP:INHERITORG, this is not a major determining factor in notability. As for blogs, please see WP:BLOGS WP:SPS. Graywalls (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , I have moved the discussion here. It's still not clear to me which source you're describing as a blog. Thanks, Helen Puffer Thwait (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that PSF should be considered a WP:RS, & this is not the only article to cite it. FWIW, the PSF website precedes blogging by several years. - Gyrofrog (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Since the label was founded by Ali and largely released his records, I could see a reasonable case for a merge here, being as the content is encyclopedic but the two articles could fairly be seen as covering the same topic. However, independent coverage of the label in publications like DownBeat, JazzTimes, and PSF suggest that a standalone article is defensible. In any case, a redirect without merging is the worst possible outcome. Chubbles (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Either way, per WP:NOTCATALOG the list of releases should be purged. Graywalls (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with having a list of something if the list is encyclopedic. A discography is not always inherently a trivial catalog; when providing information on musicians and labels, it's entirely reasonable - published jazz discography books often have detailed listings of recordings. Chubbles (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Graywalls Which of the six criteria outlined in WP:NOTCATALOG do you think this label discography meets? Mach61 15:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , Cleary #6. The releases is nothing but a catalog., any opinion on how this should/should not be addressed? I don't believe exhaustive product listing of a minor record label is encyclopedic yet I don't believe it warrants a separate "list of products by some tiny company" either. , the thing is that I don't think it's encyclopedic. Graywalls (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The list of albums is not "a resource for conducting business". The mere fact that these albums were once offered for sale does not make this an unencyclopedic product catalog, and NOTCATALOG 6 explicitly states that lists of creative works are permitted. We have articles on all but one of the items in the list (and listing the last would be permitted per WP:CSC point 3); removing the list makes accessing the label's creative output much more difficult, in addition to robbing the article of most of its encyclopedic value. The list deserves to be here. Chubbles (talk) 05:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The discussion at Talk:Jagjaguwar was essentially the same. Although that involved artists that released on the company as opposed to exhaustive/nearly exhaustive list of albums, but I do believe it's more or less the same matter, but I'll give courtesy pings to if they want to give additional opinions on whether product listing is different from artist listing. I do believe that an extended listing of products is inappropriate. Graywalls (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , I believe this summarizes it well Thus, for example, Wikipedia should not include a list of all books published by HarperCollins, but may include a bibliography of books written by HarperCollins author Veronica Roth. from WP:NOTADIRECTORY #6. Graywalls (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what that quotation is supposed to illustrate; it seems to be support for the idea that Wikipedia should not include pricing and availability data (and I agree), but a list of books by a publisher is not that. It seems flatly contradicted by articles such as List of Square Enix video games, which is a list of products issued by a company, and it is a featured list - if I understand your reading of NOTCATALOG6 correctly, this featured list should be considered promotional corporate spam and should in fact be deleted. So, too, with articles such as List of Pixar films, List of Microsoft Windows versions, and List of Collins GEM books - which is, in fact, a list of books published by (a subsidiary of) HarperCollins. Chubbles (talk) 07:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a repeat of endless prior discussions with one editor wanting to keep non-notable artists in listings. And most lists had no sources or no independent sources. In my opinion, promo. The Banner  talk 14:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This list had a source, and 11 of the 12 recordings in it are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia pages. And there's at least two editors who want to keep it.
 * Helen Puffer Thwait (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * All of which were created by you, by the way. I've yet to individually evaluate them for WP:NALBUM, but having been created doesn't automatically mean it passes notability requirements. I also see that you're reaching to individual editor's talk pages about this discussion, one of which has nothing to do with the subject matter at all. Graywalls (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep! Helen Puffer Thwait (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Is the record company still selling these releases, or are they historical? SportingFlyer  T · C  21:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's my understanding that the label wound down with the death of its founder (2009), and that, since its revival by Ali's widow, it has only offered two releases: Duo Exchange: Complete Sessions and First Time Out: Live at Slugs 1967, both of which are historical recordings from 1972 and 1967 respectively. At least six of the out-of-print Survival releases were reissued by the Knitting Factory's Knit Classics label, which launched in 2000. I would imagine the other releases remain out-of-print. Here are my sources for these statements; if you find I'm wrong about any of this, please lmk. Thanks.
 * [] [] [] [] [] []
 * Helen Puffer Thwait (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Given that all but one record is for an ensemble with Ali, and that we generally don't list the produced works of a production or distribution company since they don't have the amount of creative input into the albums, it seems far better to simple mention that the label was used by Ali for about a dozen of his albums along with this other one, and then have the reader refer to the page on Ali for the short list. --M asem (t) 04:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that, actually, in general, we often do this. See a few examples I have listed above. Chubbles (talk) 07:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * After all that's done, it would be short enough that merge and re-direct would be reasonable. That may be the only option if the article doesn't pass WP:NCORP criteria and Survival Records as a company may not pass the bar of NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 05:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This would make sense. SportingFlyer  T · C  17:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:CATALOG #6
@Graywalls I've restored the discography until consensus is reached about WP:CATALOG #6. I do not believe damning this discography follows the spirit of the rule: Eugenia ioessa (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * the list is independently notable;
 * all but one album has a page, and a table seems more reader-friendly than a bullet-pointed See also section;
 * there is a complete lack of promotion or advertisement: no "business alliances, clients, competitors, employees ... equipment, estates, offices, store locations, contact information, patent filings, ..., sponsors, subdivisions [or] tourist attractions";
 * and a discography is no more a list of "products and services" than a bibliography or filmography are.
 * Sorry, I have removed the list again. It is very much following the given source, what makes it look like promo. Especially with al the catalogue numbers, making it fall foul of nr. 6 "A resource for conducting business". The Banner  talk 13:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , Please see WP:ONUS. We don't do "bibliography" of publishers either, as stated in the guideline. Graywalls (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "a discography is no more a list of "products and services" than a bibliography or filmography are." Someone please put this into a formal guideline document. Chubbles (talk) 07:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A filmography seldom comes with ordering numbers while both the filmography and bibliography usually can be sourced with independent, reliable sources. The Banner  talk 08:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , We still don't do it for publishers and companies. For individual artists, then yes. Graywalls (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No reason to treat those things qualitatively differently. We don't treat individual musical artists differently than bands, and bands are companies, too. There is no need to independently source a bibliography of published works; so, too, a discography. Chubbles (talk) 02:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Bands and creatives are specifically covered under the subject specific notability guidelines WP:NBAND and WP:NARTIST. Record companies are not part of the SNG. As been suggested to you before, start an RfC or discuss over at Village Pump if you wish to change the definition. Be sure to let companies and business related Wikiprojects know about this rather than just music related groups when you do so. Graywalls (talk) 02:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to ignore music guidelines when dealing with music-related topics, and no reason to ignore the input of subject-matter experts in the field; the field is music, not business. Chubbles (talk) 06:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I edited the original comment with a word I missed. So, start an RfC and notify Wikiprojects in comapnies, organizations as well as music. Graywalls (talk) 06:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, a record company is a business. But with that said, I have no trouble listing notable artists (as in: with an article on ENWP) that are independently sourced (as in: not sourced by the label or artist). The Banner  talk 09:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This has degenerated into us performatively rehashing debates held elsewhere, which is not useful to the discussion initiator. Helen Puffer Thwait, at this point you've heard enough argument to decide for yourself how you want to view the issue as well as whether you will acquiesce to the exceptionally aggressive reversion tactics of my philosophical opponents here. Chubbles (talk) 04:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Why do you dislike independent, reliable sourcing? The Banner  talk 08:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)