Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dubophonic


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Dubophonic

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I just removed some inconsequential "awards" from the article; looking at sources, the company doesn't seem to be notable. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 14:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  14:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  14:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  14:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:SUBNOT and comes across as promotional. Actaudio (talk) 03:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Author comment. I am a bit surprised tham my article has been considered for deletion because  its not noteable. I hope it will not be deleted without any discussion, since i invested a lot of time for researching and writing. I have written it following the guidelines of  other articles on sinilar subjaect, and i think everything was nicely citadet. I dare to note that it has more information it it than many other articles in wikipedia on a sinilar subject ... but of course there is always space for improvement. --Explorations In Dub (talk) 08:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I understand that not everybody is familiar with independent labels, but in such cases any citation coming from third party sites will not be from mainstream sites. I have rewritten the article adding more citations from third party sites from noteable sources in reggae music like Juno, Roots Reggae Review, etc. (such sites are very trustworthy)


 * I tried to write 4 things in the article: First a brief profile of the label, second the policy of how they choose the music, third the catalog of the label and fourth the feedback it has to the listeners through reviews/airplay/etc, all nicely citated from third party sites/media etc. .. each subject with citation from the research i've done in the internet.


 * I hope with these changes the article can be saved from deletion. thnx -Explorations In Dub —Preceding undated comment added 16:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:ORGDEPTH. the problem is that apart from the Cyprus Mail (which sounds like a promotional publicity piece anyway), none of your citations are from reliable or noteworthy sources. Reggaemusic.org.uk, Reggae Roots Review and The Cerebral Rift are blogs, and not acceptable as sources per WP:BLOGS (indeed, the last one appears to be crowdfunded). The Juno chart isn't a recognised chart per WP:SINGLEVENDOR. Tribal Realities magazine isn't a recognised source either, it appears to be mostly the work of one man and given away free. Most of the other sources just show that records from the label have had the occasional play on radio stations, which doesn't make them notable either. And none of the artists on the label are notable. Your article on Reggae Sunjam has the same serious problems regarding notability, with the same Cyprus Mail article, and an event listing, and that's it, which means it fails WP:EVENTCRIT. Richard3120 (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. Looks like you will delete the article anyway, so whatever i add or write will apparently have no result. I tell u again that an independent label is NOT a mainstream label and will NOT be in mainstream charts/sites/newspapers/etc (very rare)that does not mean though that the citation is not of quality. I just wonder why articles on same subject (indep. record labels) with less information and with zero citation, or citation of same "quality" as the ones i used are allowed to be on wikipedia? eg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_Circuitry#cite_note-1 ... there are so many. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahtari Similar links i used in my article (Discogs, interview sites, sites that look like were made privately, etc) but still accepted. ... or this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirakel_Musik no citation and external links from discogs and archive.org ....  Is this the logic you are using? Is this the way you are facing new editors/writers in wikipedia? because if u decide what to do u must decide the same for everybody and many other articles should also be removed ... and there are so many ;) -Explorations In Dub
 * Comment. But you see, the Jahtari article has in-depth references from the leading national German newspaper, a German national broadcasting network, a syndicated British newspaper, and a British events magazine (although this is just an event listing, and the weakest reference of the lot). The Dubophonic article doesn't have any references from sources at this level of recognition, so you can't compare the two cases. But I agree with your other examples, and that they should probably be put up for deletion too... we're not picking on you, it's just that there are well over five million articles on the English Wikipedia, and a lot of the bad ones can go unnoticed for years. But all of them should pass the basic criteria for verifiability WP:V, and when an editor funds an article that doesn't, it gets nominated for deletion - we do have the same criteria for everybody. Richard3120 (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think it will be easier if instead of spending my hours writing articles only to be rejected at the end, to fish out all these thousands of articles for deletion ... easier, faster and with no stress. I hope u don't accuse me of vandalism though :) By the way regarding the Dubophonic article, it was in the list of the articles that people wanted something to be written on wikipedia => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/music Perhaps i am indeed adequate to write a "proper" article, but perhaps there is another one who would want to write about it. I would be also very curious to see how another person would deal with the subject. Explorations In Dub —Preceding undated comment added 07:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Explorations In Dub. Do not be discouraged if an article you have created, and one, moreover, on which you have worked hard, as you say, is being deleted. It happens all the time, due to the nature of Wikipedia. It has happened to me a few times, too, for what it's worth. The way to go forward is to acquaint yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and particularly with the WP:AFC process. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per nom and . Above arguments in favour of keeping are about existence (versus notability), and feel like WP:FAN. Britishfinance (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete since subject fails WP:NCREATIVE and WP:NCORP. The argument that the text's creator has worked hard for it is not relevant. -The Gnome (talk) 11:25, 23 February 2019 (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.