Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hefty 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 keep. SoWhy 19:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Hefty Records

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Listing after declined PROD. Not enough sources to establish notability, no major releases (as far as I can tell). Ytoyoda (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Hefty's a well-enough known Chicago label to have been covered substantially by XLR8R, Chicagoist , and The New York Times - that last one is already a source in the article for the label's founder, also AfD'ed at the same time as this one. The label's best-known act is almost certainly Telefon Tel Aviv, though by no means the only notable artist on the roster. Chubbles (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - meets GNG. Not an overwhelming number of notable artists, but coverage indicates this label has had a noticeable cultural impact.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 14:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete The NYT article does not support GNG here because Hefty is not the subject and is just mentioned in passing. The XLR8R source in not a clearcut WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The label gets reasonably substantial mention in the Hughes NYT profile (he is the label's founder and a release of his on the label is discussed), and XLR8R was a major print music publication for almost 20 years. Also, this does not exhaust available sourcing (e.g.,, ). Chubbles (talk) 12:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Chubbles. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Please see WP:AADD.  HighKing++ 21:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete The requirements for references that meet the criteria for establishing notability is a lot different than the criteria for supporting facts within an article. So, while this NYT reference can be used in a latter capacity, it fails the former because it is not "intellectually independent" and fails WP:ORGIND. Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is also the same reason that the xlr8r reference and the chicagoist reference also fail the criteria for establishing notability. Also, notability is not inherited]. Without references, topic fails GNG and [[WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 21:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ORGIND is not part of GNG. The lead section of WP:N makes it very clear that if a topic satisfies GNG it does not have to satisfy any SNG including ORG. WT:ORG has a much lower level of participation than WT:N, which is why some parts of ORG represent a minority viewpoint. James500 (talk) 02:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, all of what you said is untrue. Nowhere in GNG does it state that if a topic satisfies GNG it doesn't have to satisfy any SNG. Nowhere does it say anywhere that ORG represents a "minority viewpoint". WP:N provides generic guidelines that can be applied to all articles but certain categories provide additional clarification and also represents consensus. There are no "levels" applied to guidelines. Both GNG and ORGIND have the same "level" or standing since both are parts of guidelines (not policies) and are accepted by general consensus. The purpose of guidelines is to provide clarifications on policy. GNG and ORGIND actually provide clarification on pretty much the exact same things but NCORP provides extra clarification in relation to companies/organisations. So, for example, both mention that sources must be "independent". GNG states "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent" NCORP clarifies even further point out that articles that "repackage" these works (relying extensively or merely repeating) without adding sifnificant original/independent analysis/opinion are also not independent and helpfully labels this as "intellectual independence". Hence why both the references you've provided fail as not being "independent" of the topic. Whether you look at GNG or ORGIND, same thing, but a better clarification is found in ORGIND.  HighKing++ 10:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Sources have been added to the article; the in-depth interviews given here are usually accompanied by summary information and analysis. This is, to be honest, quite a fair bit of attention from the press for a record label. Chubbles (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Response Hi, you've added two additional references but neither meets the requirements for establishing notability. This one from the Chicago Tribune is an interview with the founder and since it is not intellectually independent, it fails WP:ORGIND since it does not contain any original/independent opinion/analysis that is not attributable to Hughes. It also fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it contains no information about the company. The other reference from StopSmiling is labelled clearly as an "oral history" from Hughes and fails for the same reasons. ORGIND defines "intellectual independence" and it goes on to state: Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.  HighKing</b>++ 17:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That guideline is intended to prevent the use of press releases and wholesale regurgitations of press releases as sources. An interview with a journalist at the Chicago Tribune is inherently going through an editorial process. It does not make sense to apply that guideline here, nor to interviews conducted by reliable sources generally. Chubbles (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Two points on that. The first is that an interview with a founder, repeated verbatim, has always been regarded as a PRIMARY source and was never acceptable as a reference to establish notability of an organization. Second, the guideline is intended to disqualify information that explicitly originates from the company itself. Before it was updated this year, is stated other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people. After the update, it clarified that references must be "intellectually independent" and requires "original and independent opinion" that is "clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject". I don't see how your interpretation of the guidelines is correct but hopefully others will chime in. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 11:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that guideline would be wise, especially as applied to arts and entertainment, where interviewing is crucial to journalism on the topic. If you are a music journalist and you want to write about a label that's putting out what you think of as important and noteworthy music, where do you go to get information about it? Of course, you go to its founder and to its roster. The jazz encyclopedias I use all the time are obviously sourced from interview and oral history material - sometimes even the artists' website bios. In all of these cases, independent editorial judgment has been exercised to assess that 1.) This is an important enough artistic entity to include and promulgate in the magazine/newspaper/encyclopedia, and 2.) The reporting institution does not have good reason to believe the information gleaned from the artist or label runner is suspect (and so, as a reasonable but rebuttable presumption, neither do we). As a source, interview material often should be couched in Wikipedia articles as "X said this about himself" rather than "X did this", but that is a separate issue from the fact that the music the label releases was artistically noteworthy enough for the reporting institution to interview the label head in the first place. Chubbles (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between what sources can be used to establish notability and what sources can be used to establish facts within an article. Your examples above are (probably) just fine for the latter but there's different standards for the former. To establish notability, the reference must be intellectually independent. I've pasted what that means already above. If a topic is truly notable, it should be possible to find two references. Also, because the references you've produced involve interviews with the founder - and the founder appears to be much more notable than this company - it appears to me that the interviews are not *about* the company which also indicates that the company isn't notable in its own right. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 15:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My contention is that interviews conducted by major newspapers/magazines/websites/etc. with editorial boards are intellectually independent for the reasons I have stated, and so establish notability nonetheless. As for the latter point, if the articles just discussed Hughes's status as a scion or his live performances, you might have a better case there, but the sources all relate to Hefty and its releases specifically in some substantial way. Chubbles (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Since this debate started, the separate article on the label's founder has been merged into this label article (see Articles for deletion/John Hughes III). I contend that the above discussion on whether an interview with the founder constitutes coverage of the label is a bit of a red herring. The label got noticed because its founder has a famous relative, and that founder has done little else beyond running the label. Therefore the two topics pretty much go hand-in-hand, and even more-so now that the founder's article has been merged into this one. This label probably would not be independently notable per NCOMPANY if the founder wasn't semi-famous, but it got a few pieces of reliable coverage anyway. It's not much but enough for a basic stub article. --- <b style="color: DarkOrchid"> DOOMSDAYER 520</b> (Talk&#124;Contribs) 18:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment But .. but .. but ... hang on, stating This label probably would not be independently notable per NCOMPANY if the founder wasn't semi-famous is an admission that the company is not notable in its own right and since notability is not inherited, the semi-famous founder's purported notability doesn't enter into consideration. And getting a few pieces of reliable coverage also isn't the full criteria for establishing notability since the "coverage" must also meet the criteria in SIGCOV *and* ORGIND *and* CORPDEPTH. Can you take another look and perhaps revisit your !vote based on the above? <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 12:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually I would advise you to stop repeating the exact same argument to every vote that is different than your own. My point has been made once, your point has been made at least thrice and counting. Let the consensus process play out. --- <b style="color: DarkOrchid"> DOOMSDAYER 520</b> (Talk&#124;Contribs) 17:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The AfD process is about discussion, not blindly registering !votes - that's how consensus is formed. Also, this is the first time ever I've pointed out to an editor that their reasoning essentially admits the company isn't notable but then wants to ignore NOTINHERIT because, you know, perhaps that isn't what you meant and everybody deserves to get a chance to put their point across without fear of misinterpretation. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 12:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not ignore the "not inherited" rule; I just don't think it applies as indicated in my vote, though I did not mention it specifically. Take a look at WP:BLUDGEON for some community thoughts on how consensus is built. --- <b style="color: DarkOrchid"> DOOMSDAYER 520</b> (Talk&#124;Contribs) 16:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.