Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cher Doll 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   no consensus. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Cher Doll Records

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:CORP - ''An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability''. Article was PROD November 2, 2008. PROD seconded November 7, 2008. PROD removed because "Neutral Milk Hotel is notable, and this is their first record; article should stay" (Article is not on this band or the bands album, it is on a small record label) Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Delete Melia Nymph (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   —Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.   —Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep Several notable bands (with Wikipedia entries) had their first or other early records on this label; yes, it's a small label but still has a following. Two of the records are still being sold a decade later. The NMH single goes for hundreds of dollars on Ebay. It's a significant label in the history of American indiepop. 216.64.147.98 (talk) 03:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Note: this user's first Wikipedia edit was removing the PROD.
 * Comment So sorry, my ISP changes my IP on me all the time, and I didn't log in. But I appreciate the slight.\ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 17:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article is about the label, not the bands on the label. In order to meet guidlines the label must be the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Articles about artists who mention their label are not "independent secondary sources." Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

* tag References needed. (added updated comment at bottom of discussion) ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve, as per ChildofMidnight. ~ Pip 2  andahalf  05:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article is already tagged and the only citations that have been added is an article about a band and the label owners blog. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It gets my back up with editors say things like "none of these artists are notable", as appeared on the page yesterday. An editor who doesn't think NMH is notable has no business touching articles about indiepop or indie rock at all. There appearss to be an organized campaign to rid Wikipedia of indiepop-related stuff. There is a large and active scene that follows this stuff, and would like to see facts represented in Wikipedia where they can be looked up. Not everything is on the web! This label, and dozens like it, are crucially important to the international indiepop scene. The music released on this label has been reissued on major labels and used in television commercials on major networks. But some little tyrants think Wikipedia is only for stuff that everyone knows already. Mick Jagger was in the Rolling Stones, I hear. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 17:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This is also a misleading statement by Soundvisions1, as, while the articles (not "article") are indeed "about a band", if you read them, they go into some detail about how the artist came to send his stuff to this label. It's absolutely pertinent. Unfortunately, only a tiny fraction of human knowledge is on the web, so I am unable to provide the sort of web links that make editors happy, but I am working on gathering better information. Perhaps editors who have nothing better to do than REMOVE THINGS, as opposed to those who add them, could hold off for just a moment? \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 18:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment:This is an AfD for a record label, not about artists and their "notability". Notability discussion of an artist should be done on that artists talk page. Also an AfD is not the place to discuss original synthesis about Wikipedia itself. In regards to the citations posted, the articles were not about the label nor do they go into "some detail" about the label. In the one marked as Jeff Mangum of Neutral Milk Hotel talking about Cher Doll the subject of this AfD is briefy mentioned 5 times - 4 of those times only in relationship to recordings - ""Everything Is" / "Snow Song Pt. 1" on Cher Doll Records is one the few really great singles released in recent years...."; another single "...also on Cher Doll Records"; ""Invent Yourself A Shortcake" on the Champagne Dancing Party EP on Cher Doll"; and "There's one further 7" on Cher Doll featuring Neutral Milk Hotel..." The other mention in the article is "I ended up sending a tape to Nancy at Cher Doll Records and she saved me merely by saying she wanted to do a single." This is not "significant coverage" of Cher Doll Records. In the citation marked as History of Neutral Milk Hotel describing Cher Doll Records (This citaion is a "Neutral Milk Hotel Biography") there is one paragraph that mentions Cher Doll, this is the entire paragraph: "After high school, Mangum moved from Ruston and traveled to Austin, Texas; Denver, Colorado; Chicago, Illinois; and New York City picking up temporary band members, playing, and recording music. Neutral Milk Hotel's first single, "Everything Is/Snow Song" was released by Seattle's Cher Doll Records in 1994. Nancy Ostrander, owner of Cher Doll, found Mangum's music intriguing. Cost conveyed Ostrander's attraction for Mangum's music, "It was fuzzy and happy and catchier than heck. I like music that is actual songs--the shorter the better--and he got bonus points for 'Snow Song' sounding like the Jesus and Mary Chain." The band was featured on two compilations that were also released by Cher Doll: Amazing Phantom Third Channel, in 1994 and Champagne Dancing Party,in 1995." The other mentions are in a listing of releases. The General notability guideline defines the terms used in Notability (organizations and companies) and other subject specific guidlines. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * delete lacks coverage in multiple independant reliable sources. claims in See Also section of article are not true. Links are not about Cher Doll. coverage there is only trivial. Blogs are not reliable sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: What you are saying is true of EVERY indie label. Fine, delete the fucking thing. You're damaging Wikipedia's value to people seeking information. Absolutely insufferable. I'm done with this fucking site; I've never had a contact with it that didn't immediately run into brain-dead ACCOUNTANTS prattling on about stuff they have no understanding of. As a result, Wikipedia collects more and more information from its increasingly shitty "sources", because those sources are the ones that idiot editors like you consider "reliable" even when they are filled with errors. I am a good editor, but you have no use for good editors, only ROBOTIC ACCOUNTANTS. Fuck you. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 00:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - There are notable indie labels. Each article, regardless of your personal fondness for the subject, has criteria including those outlined at WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:N. This label just isn't notable. --  At am a chat 04:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - The external links given in the article are either not reliable or give trivial mention to the label. The only real claim to notability is that it gave Neutral Milk Hotel its start, however even if this is so the label might be worth mentioning on NMH's article. That doesn't mean that this label inherits notability on its own. Also, to those who say to simply expand references, good luck with that. Google News has only a passing mention in one article, and a more general Google search turns up nothing, it's not like there seems to be anything to add. --  At am a chat 04:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per citations in comment above by Soundvisions1. These are enough to merit an article. Some people will want to find this information and we should provide it.  Ty  04:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am not sure I follow Ty  at all. The  citations are not from me, they are currently attached to the article as citations to establish notability for the company. As they are articles on the band Neutral Milk Hotel and can be added to that article (if they are not already) the information will still be available. An article should not be kept, or created, based on trivial mentions of a subject appearing in published sources. Per WP:GNG "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." To further clarify there is a footnote attached that reads "Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (January 6, 1992). "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian. ) is plainly trivial." Soundvisions1 (talk) 06:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You have given examples of where the label is mentioned and you do not consider these to be sufficient to justify an article on the label. My judgement is that these do allow it to scrape the bar. My rationale is that although the mentions are not extensive, they bestow significance. The question is whether wikipedia is a better or worse reference work for inclusion of an article on this label. I consider it will be a better one with it. All other considerations are subservient to this prime consideration.  Ty  17:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a not matter of what "I" consider, it is what the policy and guidlines consider.Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There has been no discussion based on policy, only on the WP:CORP guideline, which "is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Interpretation and application is necessary. You've stated how you consider it applies in this case. So have I. Semantics about that won't progress matters.  Ty  04:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Ty, you either didn't look over this discussion well or chose to ignore part of the discussionm if you say there's no "discussion based on policy". I clearly discussed WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:N. Reliable sources are lacking (and can't be found) which leads to a failure of verifiability, and aside from all of that this subject isn't notable. Your reason for keeping this article is that people have read it, but there is no policy that backs up that reason. --  At am a chat 16:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I was meaning to refer to SoundVision1's nom reason and subsequent development of that. However, I acknowledge one policy has been raised, WP:V. However, you have misrepresented my statement which was keep "per citations in comment above by Soundvisions1", which I consider establish a place "worthy of note", albeit minor, in the history of music. I consider the fact that the article is attracting readers is something that should be borne in mind. There seems to be an increasing tendency to act by rules and excise anything else on wikipedia nowadays... I also think we need in our assessment to compensate for the fact that this label was in operation before the web was widespread in the way that it is now.  Ty  05:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep It's very thin, but some references have been added where the label is mentioned. I think it's enough. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's getting stronger with the interest of several editors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think it is great that some editors are trying to salvage this article. But this latest idea for a source, letting the business owner somewhat oversee the article, is even more questionable. This is a blatant vio of the Wikipedia:No original research policy. And, if one is to believe Ty's post on the talk page, the business owner is saying "Unfortunately the most reliable source about the label appears to be me". One should keep in mind that this AfD is not a "vote", it is a discussion about if the article subject meets WP:CORP. If the Admin that comes in to oversee this feels editors have made violations of Policy in order to "save" the article, good faith or not, they have the authority to take that into account when making the final decision. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You are jumping to conclusions, which are quite erroneous. The subject is aware of the article and debate, and has, commendably, taken no part in either. She is not in any way "overseeing the article", nor has anything in the article been altered or added on the basis of contact with her. As you state "This is a blatant vio of the Wikipedia:No original research policy", could you please substantiate your accusation and indicate which content in the article you are referring to. Otherwise, you might like to retract it. It is perfectly legitimate to engage in communication with an article subject. She has indicated that there are some errors, and some of these are in sources. This is a useful lead, and can be followed up. She may also be able to provide additional sources, including print material that is not available on the web. None of this constitutes "violations of Policy". I suggest you strike through your post.  Ty  05:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Amendment to the above. There has been one minor change stimulated by the contact with the label owner, namely the statement that the record by Blanket was a 7" one. The latter detail has been removed. However, it wasn't even in the source in the first place, so far from adding WP:OR, the WP:OR has been removed. Furthermore, this fidelity to the source was stated in the edit summary: "changed to make more aligned with sources statement per Nancy's comment".  Ty  05:43, 13 November 2008 (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.