Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catalog numbering systems for single records


 * 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. Numerically it's a split, but the core argument for deletion is compelling and uncontested: the content is entirely based on self-published websites, which are basically the textbook definition of what WP:RS are not. Because WP:V as a core policy cannot be superseded by consensus, the opinions to keep must be discounted. While I appreciate arguments such as RoySmith's that we should nonetheless keep this useful or interesting content per WP:IAR, I do not think that these arguments hold up under scrutiny. IAR asks us to ignore rules that prevent us from improving Wikipedia, but in the light of the core policy of verifiability, it is the removal rather than the addition of unverifiable material that improves Wikipedia.  Sandstein  17:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Catalog numbering systems for single records

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The purpose and scope of this article seem very unclear. It purports to "present the numbering systems used by various record companies for single records", but there are/have been dozens (hundreds?) of record labels that have released singles and it seems unclear what purpose an article trying to describe every label's catalog numbering system, just for one type of release (vinyl singles), serves in an encyclopedia. Notes on a particular record label's catalog numbering system would, I think, best go in the article about that record label. There doesn't seem to be much use in trying to compile all record labels' catalog systems into a single list. Nearly every reference in this article is to a single website, http://www.78discography.com/, which appears to be a personal website. Other refs point to http://www.45cat.com/ which I think is a wiki. The article was created and mainly built up by User:BRG who, according to their user page, stepped away from WP because they felt the concepts of "reliable sources" and "notability" were detrimental, and didn't see why personal web pages weren't reliable as sources. I think that probably explains why this article exists. IllaZilla (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - lack of reliable sources, no real clear indication of importance. The article documents numbering systems for record labels, but...so what? What's the significance of that? Why would such a thing need documentation on an encyclopedia? The article doesn't cover it, and I can't think of anything personally. Sergecross73   msg me  00:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep – it's an excellent resource and yes, this is a topic worth entering an encyclopedia for its historical significance (music studies rely on this kind of evidence pretty often; it is also the case with recordings of spoken word). Better references are definitely needed, but this shouldn't be deleted. – Impy4ever (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This argument lacks any sort hard proof or examples. WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ITSNOTABLE are not valid keep rationales, especially coupled with the fact that both sources used in the article are not reliable/usable sources, and you haven't presented any alternative reliable sources to be used.
 * I can maybe understand someone arguing that it'd be worth a sentence or two at an individual record label's article about the fact that the numbering systems existed, but there is no actual purpose of actually listing out all these numbering systems in one location like this. These numbers have no significance to the general reader. We don't list them at their respective Wikipedia articles. You wouldn't use them to locate music - you don't type them in at iTunes or expect to see signs on retail shelves at Best Buy. There's literally no value in knowing these numbers. Sergecross73   msg me  13:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - This seems an excellent resource and the fact that the nominator cannot see a reason why it should exist is annulled by the fact that I have just come across it linked in a DYK hook here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "It's a good resource" isn't a compelling argument. The DYK "hook" is a red herring: the article is merely linked to provide some definition of "catalog number" (which the article doesn't even do...it presents no description or definition of what catalog numbers are or what purpose they serve), it's not the subject of the DYK. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * DYK hooks have no bearing on article notability, or whether not articles are kept or deleted. And even if they did, that DYK hook's existence does not hinge on this article existence. Completely irrelevant !vote rationale. Sergecross73   msg me  13:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep no proper deletion reason given that couldn't be addressed by improving the article rather than deleting it. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that's true. As explained above, the scope of the article is fundamentally flawed in ways that don't seem fixable. Why an article compiling descriptions of various record labels' catalog systems, rather than describing each label's catalog system separately within the individual articles about those labels? The systems have nothing to do with one another. It's not like all these record labels got together and planned some type of complementary numbering system, so presenting them all in one article seems to serve no purpose. And why just singles? No indication is given that the numbering systems for singles are distinct from the numbering systems used for other types of records (LPs, EPs), so the scope of the article seems arbitrary. There have been so many record labels that have released singles that such an article can hardly hope to ever approach being comprehensive, so the goal of the article is unclear. Plus, as pointed out, the article relies almost entirely on a single personal website as its source. That can't be fixed. There could/should probably be an article describing what record catalog systems are, how they developed, and how they are used by the major companies in the major markets (along the lines of the articles on International Standard Book Numbers and library catalogs), but such an article would need to be built from scratch; neither the title, text, nor sources from this article would be useful in developing it. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you don't, but the concept is well-established and most of your nomination relates to a lack of quality or reliable sources. Just arbitrarily deleting the article because it's not perfect yet seems a little premature.  I note you're badgering "keep" voters so I'm now unwatching, my point remains unchanged.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But "lack of reliable sources" is a perfectly valid argument for deletion. Valid and still not discredited. Sergecross73   msg me  13:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Excellent, well-sourced, encyclopedic treatment. Carrite (talk) 04:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As pointed out in the nomination, nearly the entire article relies a single personal website as its source. Would you mind explaining how you interpret that as being "well-sourced"? --IllaZilla (talk) 08:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you gave this a thorough look. Every single source listed traces back to 2 websites. One is "45cat", which is literally listed as unreliable at WP:MUSIC/SOURCES. The other is "78discography", which not literally listed at the music source site, is obviously a self-published database by a random person, and is nothing other than a giant database entry. Which is great, because that's the type of place that should be hosting this sort of information, not Wikipedia. It doesn't establish notability here in the slightest. Sergecross73   msg me  13:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - This needs work, yes, but AfD is not for cleanup. This is an encyclopedic subject, and while it may need to be moved to List of catalog numbering systems for single records to better reflect its content, this is a notable topic. The main thrust of the delete arguments seems to be "These numbers have no significance to the general reader." - that is not a reason to delete anything, or else we'd have to axe about two-thirds of the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no need for hyperbole, and please don't misrepresent the nomination. Nowhere in the nomination does it say anything about whether catalog numbers have significance to anyone. I'm an album collector myself. I'm working on a record label discography article right now...I certainly find the catalog numbers to be useful toward those interests. Rather, I questioned the usefulness of lumping a seemingly arbitrary handful of record labels' catalog systems together in a single article, rather than discussing each label's system separately in the individual articles about each label (since the various labels' systems have nothing to do with one another). As clearly stated in the nomination, the reasons for deletion are 1) lack of clear scope, 2) seemingly arbitrary inclusion criteria, 3) reliance upon a single, unreliable source for nearly all of the content. How could those issues be fixed by cleanup? --IllaZilla (talk) 08:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A key part of my argument was that there weren't enough (any?) reliable sources for the subject. Pretty certain that's a valid reason for deletion (that still hasn't been countered.) I think it's rather clear that's what the nomination was driving at too, even if it didn't say it word for word. (What do you think he's getting at when he says that the only 2 sources present are unreliable and that the article creator didn't understand the notion of an RS to begin with? Do we really need to plaster every nomination with GNG NOT MET at the end?) Sergecross73   msg me  13:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Wow, the direction of this AFD is baffling to me. I've never seen so many experienced editors advocate keeping an article without any reliable sources present and without proposing any new usable ones. (at least not since the pre-2010 AFD days.) Yes, AFD is not cleanup, but that doesn't change that nothing beyond anecdotal "WP:ITSNOTABLE" arguments have been given so far in favor of keeping. No one has established how this meets the WP:GNG. "There's potential to improve this" type arguments are only valid when an actual potential path forward is presented - like providing actual reliable sources that could be used. No one has done that, and improvement hasn't happened organically since its inception in 2005. Sergecross73   msg me  13:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm equally baffled. I've been a Wikipedian for over 11 years (less active these days, after a significant wikibreak), worked on hundreds of articles, been involved in numerous behind-the-scenes discussions, am very familiar with policies and best practices, and I'm personally a big record collector geek...and I look at this article and think "what the heck is this doing on Wikipedia?" I feel like I'm in Bizarro World reading all these keep !votes. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * IAR Keep per User:Sergecross73 . Keep because it's an incredibly valuable resource.  IAR because S'73 is right that the sourcing is sub-standard.  Normally, I'm a stickler for sourcing, but normally, somebody's trying to push some private agenda (promotion of a company, political, etc) or there's a question of backing up a WP:BLP.  Nothing like that applies here.  I'd be OK if some other suitable home (i.e. another wiki, with compatible licensing, and sufficient stability/reliability) could be found and we moved it there.  But, lacking that, I'm fine with proudly flying the This is what encyclopedias are all about, damn the rules banner. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Putting it another way, we have rules to help us keep the crap out. We should not be a slave to the contrapositive of that.  -- RoySmith (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * How are you !voting "keep per Serge", when I'm one of the most ardent supporters of deleting? What is going on in this AFD? Is this some sort of practical joke on me or something? This whole AFD makes zero sense. Sergecross73   msg me  01:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's more of an IAR per Serge. I know you're arguing to delete.  -- RoySmith (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But how is it "IAR per Serge"? I'm not advocating we IAR. I'm saying it's a clear cut time to follow the rules. It fails the GNG. There's are no RS's for this topic. Not a single person has provided any sources. Every keep argument has been based around vague, anecdotal claims of WP:ITSNOTABLE. You're going to "per Setge" based on that? Sergecross73   msg me  01:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the fundamental point of WP:IAR. You are correct that according to our rules, the sourcing sucks, and it probably doesn't meet WP:GNG, and a few other problems.  What I'm saying is despite all that, I think the encyclopedia is better for having this article.  My per User:Sergecross73 seems to upset you, so I've struck that.  -- RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that much, at least. When you say "per someone", it's saying there's some sort of agreement on stances, which is fundamentally not the case here. I don't agree with cop-out rationales like that. If we resort to that sort of reasoning, a couple editors could and together to keep just about anything from being deleted. Sergecross73   msg me  02:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Participants are remined to argue/!vote in light of WP:AADD and make policy-based arguments.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric  03:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  J  947  (c · m)  04:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Yes, I think this probably is an encyclopaedic subject (certainly more so than some of the minutiae we have on popular culture sections). Despite what I've seen above, I think this may actually meet GNG too. But yes, it needs lots of work. – SchroCat (talk) 07:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But how? Not a single person has proven this. Or even rationally argued it. They just go WP:ITSNOTABLE. Yes, record labels are obviously notable, but why in the world would their numbering systems be both notable, and be encyclopedic to list out like this, especially with zero reliable sources documenting this so far. Similarly, cereal is a notable subject, but "production numbers of cereal". Most mass produced commercial products have internal numbers like this. We don't have articles for anything else like that. And for good reason, there's not even a hint of independent notability in the numbering systems. Sergecross73   msg me  13:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sergecross73, Can I give you some well-meant advice? Whether you take it or not is up to you, but it is given in entirely good faith from someone who has (to the best of my knowledge) never interacted with you? The advice is that you should probably stop questioning every single person who has !voted to keep the article. I'm sure you don't mean to give the impression, but it does look like BLUDGEONing when you're so actively questioning every keep !voter. It may be best to just step away and let it runs its course. If the keep decision goes against you, does it really matter that much? - SchroCat (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's terrible advice. I'd understand your point if this was all about subjective differences in the interpretive aspects of policy (source reliability, significant coverage, how many sources does it take to meet the WP:GNG, etc) but there hasn't been a single policy-based keep vote so far. Even you've chosen to change the subject rather than say anything of substance. Sergecross73   msg me  14:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's not terrible, it's just advice that you don't want to accept. I see I'm not the first person to have suggested this to you: The Rambling Man has already observed it. Never mind, if it continues and someone take a little heavier action than just giving advice, you can't say you were unaware that you were doing it. - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please recheck the discussion. Rambling Man was speaking to Illazilla, not me. If you've got further grievances, take it to my talk page. If you're not going to explain your invalid !vote, you're just disrupting discussion. Sergecross73   msg me  14:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well done on trying to dismiss the opinions of others just because you don't like them. BLUDGEONing all you disagree with and accusing people of being disruptive will only ever backfire on you, particularly when a polite request has been so rudely snubbed without any sense that you are in any way in the wrong. - SchroCat (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not. There's nothing wrong with asking for clarification when people don't make policy-based rationales. You've refused to make a policy based argument, and have now falsely accused me of being warned of bludgeoning of others. I don't think it's crazy to say this isn't helping advance this discussion of this articles notability. Sergecross73   msg me  15:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak keep but split content into separate articles for each label. Because there are many different record labels all with their own arbitrarily chosen sets of catalogue numbers for various releases, they shouldn't all be stuck into the same article due to having basically nothing to do with each other. If they are worthy of inclusion they should be included in articles for each label (rather than for each format) or in the articles about the labels. However, there is a case for keeping a Lists of catalogue numbers for music releases or something like that (if the content is indeed worthy of inclusion), without any in-depth information. Jc86035 (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And what exactly is that case though? No one has established an actual case. There are no sources discussing this as an independently notable subject. Sergecross73   msg me  14:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure, really. There are some sources and lists of sources that I found in this cursory search, with probably the most useful probably being this Yale University Library page which lists a number of books which have compiled catalogue numbers for old records. Jc86035 (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that those are really only databases that confirm their existence though. I don't doubt they exist really, it's just that, this isn't even something we bother to track on any song, album, band, or record label article. I don't understand rationalizing then how we'd track them all in one place like this. (or per record label even, when most record label articles are relatively short themselves. I don't think we need to track this anywhere, but if we did, it'd make more sense as a subsection at the respective label article.) Sergecross73   msg me  13:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: this is exactly the kind of list that interests me as an anally retentive person. But as an encyclopedic article, Sergecross73 and IllaZilla have pinpointed the problem – *how* exactly is this ever going to be improved and reliably sourced? Richard3120 (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTCATALOGUE. This is a loosely connected directory of information, some of it is unsourced. The referenced content should be moved to the respective articles so it is not lost. It's likely that anyone interested in catalogue numbering will be able to find the content in those articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article has no third party sourcing (99% of it is sourced from a single site, 78discography.com) and is just a bloated mess of trivia. None of this info would exist on the main articles, so why does a separate, exclusive one for this exist? It being a "valuable resource" should not be used as a defense when it fails other Wikipedia guidelines, which I believe is the case here. See WP:NOTCATALOGUE. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NOTCATALOG. Lots of !keep votes here saying WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ILIKEIT yet no one has provided sources to show how it meets WP:GNG. What am I missing here? TarkusAB talk 20:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per the very good arguments put forward by Rambling Man.  Cassianto Talk  12:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's all well and good saying how "useful" this article is and how nice it is to have it here, but this is an encyclopaedia, and the sources used in the article are just appalling. Ditto TarkusAB's comments from above. I also agree with IllaZilla that it's far from clear what the article's trying to cover. JG66 (talk) 01:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm totally baffled at finding even one "keep" vote at this AfD, never mind the deluge of votes built entirely on such blatant non-arguments as "This seems an excellent resource". I haven't been around the music WikiProjects for a few months, but last I checked, there's a consensus that we don't list catalog numbers at articles for songs and albums. Which makes sense, because those numbers are completely meaningless outside of the record collecting hobby, and Wikipedia is not a buyer's guide. So what sense is there in explaining the catalog numbering systems, much less having an article which arbitrarily groups together a bunch of numbering systems for every single label? In short: The article is poorly conceived, and covers material which is clearly outside Wikipedia's scope.--Martin IIIa (talk) 05:00, 19 December 2017 (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.