Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Estrem


 * 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Daniel Estrem

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article. Subject fails WP:BAND, WP:PROF, WP:BASIC. The Magnatune label appears to be a "vanity" publisher. Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * - I visited Daniel Estrem’s [DE] WP very recently and noted that it was up for

deletion so investigated this matter further. The "Magnatune label appears to be a 'vanity' publisher" statement has been proven false and criterion 5 appears to be satisfied. Magnatune is a leading independent record label and DE is not a "customer" of Magnatune as stated by LC. As I understand it, he receives royalties from the sale of his recordings, rather than pays Magnatune for the privilege of being on the label. I also note that almost all of the 29 CDs listed on Estrem’s Wikipedia page present his arrangements of music not heard previously on classical guitar, ukulele and mandola. This is a major contribution to his field of classical music! For this reason I believe DE’s WP should remain on line. [nohkanfue Monday March 10th 2014] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nohkanfue (talk • contribs) 21:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)   — Nohkanfue (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * - Nohkanfue I quote: has made Single-purpose account few or no other edits outside this topic.

This is hardly surprising as I have only just joined Wikipedia and this thread. It is a totally irrelevant and unhelpful comment. Nohkanfue 1005 11th march 2014.


 * - Magnatune is definitely not a "vanity" label. The magnatune home page clearly states it is a pay music subscription service, with an acceptance rate of about 3%.  Magnatune is considered one of the major indie music services: when newsweek did a roundup of the top 10 internet music services, CDBABY and Magnatune were the only independent services in the top 10.  Most major Linux distributions come with built in music support for Magnatune (Rhythmbox, Amarok, and others) and Magnatune is considered one of the most significant commercial successes using Creative Commons licensing.  Granted, Magnatune is not a major label, but it is absolutely one of the major indie music services.  As to Daniel Estrem, his albums regularly appears in the top 10, so I do not believe he lacks notoriety.  --User:johnbuckman (ceo of Magnatune)  — Preceding undated comment added 05:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi John, Magnatune sounds great, even though it lacks a WP article. More to the point, it does not help satisfy criterion 5 of WP:BAND.  Good luck with your service!  I may try it.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 13:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * - LC, I believe that Estrem satisfies criteria 5 of WP:BAND, specifically: "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable)." as Magnatune is an "important indie label", has been in operation since 2003 and has hundreds of artists (many notable, such as Jami Sieber and Brad Sucks), and over 1500 albums. Also note that Magnatune does have a long-existing WP page -- I've now changed named occurrences to it in this talk page to link to Magnatune's WP page so this fact is more transparent, and have also added a new sentence in Estrem's page linking to the WP Magnatune page. --User:johnbuckman
 * OK, thanks John. Of course you do have a MASSIVE COI here.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * - LC, Estrem's fate isn't a massive COI for me, as Magnatune has over 600 artists, and it doesn't matter much to me whether some of them have WP pages or not. Estrem asked me to put some facts into this discussion thread, because of the "magnatune is a vanity label" comment above, and all my points are independently verifiable.   --User:johnbuckman  — Preceding undated comment added 15:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, John, thanks for acknowledging that you are contributing to this AfD on behalf of your customer, who is the subject of this article. Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. As far as academic impact, nothing. Fails WP:GNG as well in my reading.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I haven't seen enough to make a vote either way, but two transcriptions published by Theodore Presser (a well-known and prestigious music publishing house) does point to this not being an obvious delete. Those transcriptions won't be enough on their own to satisfy WP:PROF or GNG, but might hint at more citations to come. Will keep looking. Remember that notability guidelines for classical musicians are still rather murky. Generally, permanent members of major orchestras have been kept, while temporary subs, etc., have not unless there are substantial other notices; as a guitar/ukelele player who wouldn't have an orchestral affiliation in any case, Daniel's case is even harder. John does have a COI, but he's adding good and useful information here, so now that the COI is acknowledged (openly by the poster) let's consider both what that means and the information that he is adding in making a decision. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. The transcriptions are from 1988 and show no citation. For that matter, from a general search the only documented use was in the subject's own duo, discussed above. How long do you propose to keep such a case alive in the odd chance that impact materializes? As for the prestige of the publishing house, this is just one case of the general pattern whereby no matter how prestigious an art publisher - and indeed any publisher - is, most of what they publish will have no substantive impact. Hence the fallacy of assigning quality to the work based on the publisher, for WP purposes. Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi Michael, thanks for your comments. I did not think that John posted so much "information" as self-serving opinions about his company and his customers/clients/business partners.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)




 * Delete per nomination. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I Vote to Keep this Page DE's "Holberg Suite" has been recorded by the Arabesque Duo, Centaur Records  Catalog #: 3194 .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sladek2014 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)   — Sladek2014 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I have made some minor edits on Wiki, but this is my first comment on an article. Since the article seems to welcome opinions from the public  I thought I would contribute.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sladek2014 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I Vote to Keep this Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lutenist 2817 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I know of the artistry of Daniel Estrem, and I also am a Magnatune artist. Magnatune has high standards in selecting artists, as most applications are rejected.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lutenist 2817 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)  — Lutenist 2817 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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.