Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep Medi Musik


 * 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. In spite of some well meaning efforts to improve the article, the consensus is clearly to delete. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Deep Medi Musik

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

plain advertising The Banner talk 21:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi The Banner, can you please tell me how it is advertising I have changed the text a lot now. I don't have any COI so I am not trying to advertise

Jalexlb (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep This page is not unambiguously promotional, because it simply states the facts. There might be room for improvement but it certainly doesn't have to be deleted. The Banner what exactly is your problem here? --Fixuture (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, like I am confused because this page now after the edits merely lists what its style is and the notable artists it has released that contribute to its notability as a label. Jalexlb (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It makes me sad that you are unable to recognize an unsourced complete record catalogue. The Banner talk 19:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hiya, it is sourced now. Jalexlb (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC
 * Great, so it is a copyrights violation... The Banner talk 23:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment This is exactly the behaviour that drives away newcomers to Wikipedia. That guy put work into creating a new Wikipedia article so be thankful! I'm always confounded of the unfriendliness of editors here. Don't you notice this yourself? For the alleged "copyrights violation" - where exactly does it say that record catalogs are copyrighted? It makes no sense as these are just factual lists. --Fixuture (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually the terms of discogs technically state that this kind of use would be ok as they technically have no right over the information as it is just the label's catalogue numbers and release names hence why there are exact copies here and here and here. It would only be an infringement if we were using the listings of discogs sellers, or somehow using the info for profit. However if need be, I shall edit the article to instead show a roster of artists.

Jalexlb (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Just copying to reignite the discussion but:

Actually the terms of discogs technically state that this kind of use would be ok as they technically have no right over the information as it is just the label's catalogue numbers and release names hence why there are exact copies here and here and here. It would only be an infringement if we were using the listings of discogs sellers, or somehow using the info for profit. HOWEVER if need be, I shall edit the article to instead show a roster of artists. Would that be a better solution

Jalexlb (talk) 11:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:PROMO. The article largely consists of a list of recording that the label issued, making it a WP:DIRECTORY, which is an additional rationale for deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment If there's truly a problem with that just remove that recording list instead of having the whole article deleted. --Fixuture (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I changed that and some other things, so now there is no longer a list of recordings. It is a notable label as shown in the sources

Jalexlb (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete This is far from satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH. The best I found are some trivial mentions on some newsblogs. I don't see any indication that this is a significance record label. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment It is one of the most influential labels in the UK dubstep scene. Music labels typically aren't the center of medial attention but there#s enough coverage anyway (e.g., , , , , ). Another showcase of this label's notability are the 43k likes of its facebook page. It would be more than biased to delete it. --Fixuture (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

But there are reviews, some of which are full length on big music sites, it is definitely significant to dubstep's history. If it wasn't significant, these big music sites and magazines such as NME and Pitchfork would not be covering it.

Also special note that they describe the label in Mixmag as 'treasured'

Jalexlb (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment:, , a couple of points – firstly, Wikipedia doesn't recognise blogs as reliable independent sources. Secondly, while there are certainly some big names like Skream and James Blake with connections to the label, that and the interviews with artists on the label doesn't necessarily make the label itself notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Please see WP:INHERITORG which states that notability of a company isn't conferred by association with notable people. Richard3120 (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * NME and Mixmag aren't 'blogs' they are massive magazines, as is shown by the fact they have their own wikipedia pages. Jalexlb (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Correct, but you haven't referenced NME or Mixmag anywhere in the article, and have instead used blogs such as drumsofthesouth.com. I was talking about the article as it stands. And they are not articles about the label, they are articles about albums – again, please read WP:INHERITORG. Richard3120 (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The article also uses a scientific journal in which deep medi is mentioned, also the documentary bassweight which was on the bbc, and many other notable sources. Also those albums were notable BECAUSE they were on Deep Medi, not the other way round. Also there is the vice feature on the history of dubstep which talks about deep medi. There are many sources I have shown on the talk page and the article which show its notability.

Also what about mixmag calling it treasured, it is from a reliable source and it talks about the label? Also labels are literally only about who they sign because music is how labels get well known, You could say therefore that Mala, a notable musician running it may not be enough on its own through that rule but the music is the very fabric of every label and with that, no labels would be notable because they would only be inhereting notability through releases.

Jalexlb (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Jalexlb (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My point is that if you actually added them to the article rather than just listing them here or on the talk page, you would have a better chance of seeing the article kept – as it stands it has almost no reliable sources. You talk about a "scientific journal" and BBC documentary, and yet you haven't added any of them as references, so we have absolutely no proof of verifiability so far. I know the Guardian blog *talks* about the documentary, but there's no proof in the article that Deep Medi are mentioned. Richard3120 (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I added it, so now the journal is there in the references and I think that helps the cause. Jalexlb (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

So now we have quite a view verifiable sources actually Jalexlb (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, would you mind pointing out which one is the scientific journal, please? Richard3120 (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

This one, its in the journal of electronic dance music Jalexlb (talk) 12:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, OK, although it's really just a review by some teacher of the same BBC documentary that mentions Deep Medi in passing in the wider context of the dubstep scene. Richard3120 (talk) 14:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but why do you think they chose Deep Medi out of any dubstep record label, because it is literally the most significant in the scene, they wouldn't have chosen it otherwise as one of the ones to talk about. Mixmag wouldn't have called it treasured, and its most recent release topper top by Sir Spyro wouldn't be currently at around 100 in the itunes chart despite dubstep supposedly having already had its best days behind it. Also it wasn't an in passing mention. A large part of the documentary is filmed about/ around a Deep Medi night

Jalexlb (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2016 (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.