Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hippos in Tanks


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 16:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hippos in Tanks

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Too soon, one marginally known client, the rest are redlinks, one mention in FACT magazine. Doesn't pass WP:N for corporations at this time. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep redlink doesn't mean not notable. I could demonstrate notability for probably 9 of the 10-act roster listed. The FACT "mention" is regarding it being their label of the year in 2011. FACT is highly regarded. http://hipposintanks.net lists about 20 pages of coverage in sources like the New York Times, The Guardian, Pitchfork, Resident Advisor and so on. Easily meets WP:CORPDEPTH 86.44.31.213 (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your argument might be stronger if you provided actual links. All I see are a bunch of weak links and passing mentions.  Dennis Brown (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * it would be, but it's already much stronger than the nom. do you view the FACT source as a passing mention? And this is what you describe as marginally known? 86.44.31.213 (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to enter a pedantic argument over your perception vs. mine on FACT. If you have other cites that are as strong as you claim (ie: NY Times article where it is receives significant coverage), please provide them.  Otherwise, I will leave it to others to draw their own conclusions.  Dennis Brown (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you shouldn't frequent AFD if you aren't prepared to discuss points you make in your noms. 1) The FACT source is significant, non-trivial, reliable, and strongly indicates notability 2) Much of the current roster and several of the past are notable acts (This is easy, though tedious, to demonstrate, & I'll be happy to do so on request) You strongly suggest otherwise in yr nom 3) read wp:corpdepth, cited above. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 22:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete The sources shown by the IP are all tangential, trivial namedrops, not enoguh to carry an article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know how cuddly we're supposed to be about these things, but that's an absurd comment. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please limit your comments in an AFD to the issue at hand, instead of personal attacks. Disproving the message is fine, discrediting the messenger is not. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I did indeed address the comment and not the commentator. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 31.213's response was meaningless, as it didn't explain why TPH's comment was absurd, but it certainly wasn't a personal attack. By the way, why not use [[WP:NPA]] when you're linking "personal attacks"? — Bility (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 'twas an assertion in response to an assertion, certainly. i notice DB's link urges responsiveness to good faith questions! i notice too that neither DB nor TPH have declared that the one has selected and summoned the other to this discussion, which is extraordinarily sharp practice. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's better to assume good faith rather than canvassing. I do wonder why TPH was the only editor besides the article creator who was notified of this AfD and whether he had requested to be informed about discussions involving Hippos in Tanks or music-related AfDs. Only Dennis Brown can tell us why this one particular editor was chosen, however. — Bility (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * TPH was consulted because I trust his opinion. He has a history of disagreeing with me as much as agreeing with me, but he is 10x the expert on these types of AFDs.  When he disagrees, I dig more and find out what I'm missing.  There are other editors and admins here I do the same with.  A check of histories can easily show that we don't converse much here, I've just seen him around enough on music AFDs to trust his *opinion*.  If I had contacted a few people who all agreed with me, then I would understand the concern, but in this case, I asked one person that has a documented history of participating in music related AFDs.  I didn't think to mention I had asked him to participate, but then again, I asked him in a public way.  I wasn't trying to hide anything.  I understand the concern, but given the totality of the circumstances, I think it is clear that I wasn't canvasing.  I accept that the concern was raised in good faith (I did ask him to look) but I only asked him, and made it clear in my request I wanted an objective opinion.  Ask User:DGG, I've asked him several times to look at AFDs I've nominated and had to eat crow, so my history should indicate that I don't cherry pick input from people who agree with me, but instead from people whose opinions I consider expert in particular fields. When it comes to music, TenPoundHammer is one those I consider an expert on music policy here. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * personally i accept that was your motivation, and perhaps it was not for you to note anyway, but the contact should have been noted here. perhaps i do him a disservice, but i do not think TPH's expertise extends to electronic music and its sourcing. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In hindsight, I probably should have said that I asked him here, it just didn't occur to me at the time, thank you for assuming good faith. My faith in TPH is not based on his ability to source a particular type of music as it is to interpret the notability guidelines for music notability.  He isn't the authority, but he is someone who I've seen enough times that I trust his judgement, as he has demonstrated many times a desire to improve the overall quality of music articles.  Even when we disagree (several times) I never have questioned his sincerity or objectivity.  That said, I still have concerns about the article, particularly since it hasn't been better sourced since the AFD started.  It's fine that we disagree on the strength of the references, but it would be helpful if there were more than one to rely on, which would work toward satisfying the "multiple" part of notability, as long as both sources comformed to the significant coverage portion as well (which also states Multiple sources are generally expected.). Otherwise, I can't help but to conclude my first statement, about it being too soon still holds.  I have no issue if someone wants it userfied until more sources appear.  Who knows, next month, the New York Times, Rolling Stones or another major publication may do a story on the company.  However, they haven't yet, which is the issue at hand.  Dennis Brown (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Literally all of your concerns have been addressed prior to your your comment above, except that i am completely unconcerned with the current state of the article. AFD is not for improvement of an article while lazy, incompetent or uninterested ppl hold a gun to its head, wouldn't you agree? It's not fine that we disagree on the strength of the sources: the degree to which this issue is subjective is very limited. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not just spectating by the way, I want to give a rationale, but I'm unsure whether FACT Magazine and Alt Sounds are reliable sources or not. The mentions in unambiguously reliable sources are passing mentions, usually just noting Hippos in Tanks as the label the album or artist is releasing on. Here is the Alt Sounds article. If either one of those sources are notable, I'd keep the article, otherwise delete. — Bility (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Others may know different, but I make no claims for AltSounds, except that i found my visit just now quite horrible. FACT is a fine source, however; I'm quite busy just now but give me an hour or so and I will try to demonstrate that. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the idea that in notability terms significant treatment of the work released on the label in high-quality sources constitutes "passing mentions" is highly dubious! nonetheless, it would be a mistake to view KCRW music blog or The Quietus  (or FACT, of course) as either ambiguous or passing mentions, and Dummy seems at most uncertain (i haven't looked into it).  86.44.31.213 (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay. It's a pain to research due to the influential '60s NY mag, the Bahraini fashion mag, Science Fiction Science Fact mag, the phrase "in fact", etc. etc. I sought to demonstrate reliability not notability, so i also excluded the Saatchi & Saatchi Doc Marten/Kurt Cobain advertising controversy. If it's only notability you're after, check the Da Capo cite, the two guardian articles and perhaps the salon article below. if that's not sufficient with all the cites, search said brouhaha.

Cited in Cited by The Guardian, Rolling Stone , by Reynolds again in Salon.com , Resident Advisor , T (New York Times) , in the Washington Post Express by Washington Post writer Christopher Porter ; its writers have contributed to publications like The Wire, Sight & Sound, Frieze  and so on. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Simon Reynolds' Retromania: Pop Culture's Addiction to Its Own Past. Faber and Faber Ltd,2011, 978-0571232086 in Italian translation
 * in UC Irvine professor Peter Krapp's Noise Channels: Glitch and Error in Digital Culture,
 * in Da Capo Press's Best Music Writing 2010, ed. Ann Powers,
 * in Adam Harper's Infinite Music: Imagining the Next Millennium of Human Music-Making, ;
 * Thank you for all the research. I think you've established that FACT Magazine is reliable, and I found one of the other sources you provided convincing as well. — Bility (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: The combination of the FACT article and one of the other sources given by 31.213 establishes this company's notability. Other concerns, such as quantity of sources or amount of content, should be handled on the article, not at AfD. — Bility (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Towards notability, here are some other sources: electronicbeats.net and dazeddigital.com. — Bility (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2012 (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.