User talk:HighKing/Archives/2021/March

Working together to make NCORP better
Hello, I read your little paragraph on Articles for deletion/Afternoon Records (3rd nomination), and I too agree that "CORP sucks for a range of companies which have an artistic element to their output/service/etc". That seems to be the consensus of other users active on this AfD, such as User:78.26 and User:Chubbles. 78.26 even told me that you don't even have to meet NCORP to be a "major indie label" per NMUSIC #5. This leaves the door open for an artist to be considered notable for being published by a label that is not notable enough to have an article, something I can't wrap my mind around.

So clearly, something about the current policies is broken. I wanted to know what you or anyone thinks about proposing some sort of WP:ARTORG amendment to WP:NCORP, something to make it less stringent for publishers of notable artists?

Cheers, Mottezen (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that would be necessary. I think NCORP is a good guideline for many record labels, particularly ongoing concerns where there is no demonstrated artistic impact.  Record labels are highly subject to the spammy promotion that we want to avoid here, because a record label doing it's job will be promoting artists.  I'm going to try (and likely fail) to better articulate my thoughts at the Afternoon AfD, which I view as a tough borderline case.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 22:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, it isn't just indie record labels. There's been more than a few NCORP AfDs for companies where the founders and "products" get coverage and awards but there's no references on the *company* as such, yet the company's identity is entirely tied up with the identity of the founders or "product". For example, there was an Architect firm in Paris which had designed some landmark buildings but all the articles were interviews/awards to the architects and not the firm. I think the guidelines should be tweaked for some "artistic" companies. Another area is where a company and the service they offer are named the same but the article is about the company but the references are all about the product. It seems a little wasteful to require the article to be recast and renamed to focus on the product. There's an AFD regarding IP2Location (currently ongoing) which suffers from that issue. I've read 78.26's !vote at the Afternoon AfD and I think it is a better idea to "fix" the guidelines rather than arguing passionately about IAR. For the record (ha, no pun intended!) I actually think the argument to !Keep Afternoon is one of the weaker ones I've come across.  HighKing++ 13:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, just FYI, here's another one of those articles at AfD: Articles for deletion/Creat Studios  HighKing++ 21:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting, so in both cases, a user proposed to rename the article "List of [company name] [productions]". Any thoughts on that approach beyond the need to create a new page if this approach is selected?
 * It's a kinda workaround that might be OK in some situations (like record production companies or comic publishers, etc) but it dodges the main issue which is a company that is involved in "creative output" where the "creatives" and the "output" are notable but the company/organization less so. I'd support addressing it in some way in NCORP to avoid these situations.  HighKing++ 16:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)