Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hush 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. I don't see a consensus here and with two relistings without further comments, I'm closing this as No consensus. Go forth and improve articles! Liz Read! Talk! 01:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Hush Records

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Lack of significant independent coverage on the entity "Hush Records" in depth such that it satisfies WP:NCORP. Though there has been some editors naming WP:NBAND #5 as the basis of recording company notability, there's no consensus supporting such application, but if it exists, linking to such discussion is encouraged. Graywalls (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Entertainment, Organizations, Companies,  and Oregon. Graywalls (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies for lack of brevity. I cannot find a way to access archives of The Oregonian beyond headlines, which is probably the most likely source of coverage. Here's some sigcov via Proquest that might not quite meet CORPDEPTH.
 * Hush Records is a Portland record label known for its quiet and soothing, but artistically interesting music. The label has a showcase on Saturday at ACME. Highlights include...
 * ''In February, Velella Velella signed with Portland's respected Hush Records, home of top-shelf indie rock artists such as Decemberists, Norfolk & Western, Kind Of Like Spitting, Laura Gibson and Corrina Repp. Hush is re-releasing V. Velella's 2005 triumph, "Bay of Biscay," with national distribution in May. It's a flexible deal ...
 * One of the most intriguing is Graves, a one-man band who has just released a new CD on acclaimed Portland, Ore., label Hush Records....Graves' new CD, "To Sur With Love," is more experimental, ranging from avant-rockers closer to Tom Waits to ballads that may remind listeners of other Hush Records groups such as the Decemberists or Norfolk And Western.


 * I have followed this label in the past, and it has a documented influence on the Portland music scene and the broader indie music scene. Most of the documentation just happens to be in articles about artists and releases. We don't really have a standard process (other than the blunt instrument of merging) for moving otherwise-notable topics away from corp/org articles into broad concept articles that are less promotional in nature. But, the encyclopedia would have a clear gap without covering it, so in absence of keep consensus I would strongly suggest a merge to something like Music of Oregon and maybe a bit more merged also to Indie music scene or a better target if one can be found, it might even be worth starting an Indie music scene of Portland, Oregon just as an ATD. I'm hopeful that someone has access to The Oregonian archives though to bypass the difficult decisions. &mdash;siro&chi;o 04:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Question I am just curious how a presumption can be made about the significance of coverage without having read the whole article. An extensive independent reporting and analysis on the article subject itself is the key which we can not assume by just looking at the first few lines. For the purpose of evaluating WP:MULTSOURCES, are those sources all from unrelated publishers and different authors? Graywalls (talk) 06:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not precisely sure what you're asking so I will give the best answers I can. First, for the 3 sources I provided, those I was able to see the article in question, and they are from three different newspapers from three different cities. Second, I cannot see any historical archives from a different news publication, The Oregonian, which I believe is likely to have more coverage of this label. Thirdly, there also is a lot more short coverage about the label in various news articles that might help with GNG but do not qualify for NORG. I hope this answers your question. &mdash;siro&chi;o 06:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Despite the nominator's claim in the nomination, and as I have said elsewhere, there is no reason to ignore WP:MUSIC #5 here, and this is yet another example of a Portland-based record label being picked off. I doubt any Portland-based labels meet NCORP, but I don't think they should have to, for the good of encyclopedic coverage of music. I've already made this case in like 10 previous AfDs in the past couple weeks, and it's fatiguing. Chubbles (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Just as I invited in the AfD argument, please link to well participated talk pages and RFCs that suggest there's a broad community support to apply NMUSIC #5 criterion for the purpose of evaluating record labels. I made good faith attempt to search for this and I haven't been able to locate it myself. Anyone make any argument based on personal convictions based but that doesn't support there's a community consensus in favor of that view. Graywalls (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I did this at my talk page, at your request. Go and look at old Record Label AfDs. Sure community consensus can change. You seem to acknowledge that policy does acknowledge NMUSIC#5, and you are therefore trying to change policy at WP:N. That's fine, but please don't make the bad-faith assumption that Chubbles, a very long time music contributor and AfD participant, doesn't know what he's talking about.  78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 10:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I am only acknowledging that some editors have been making the argument even though I find NMUSIC 5 is absolutely irrelevant to notability of record label companies. Graywalls (talk) 05:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel    (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 'Delete No effective sources. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS and WP:V.   scope_creep Talk  17:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:NCORP based on WP:ORGCRIT. NMUSIC5 applies to performers, not labels. I don't see any previous consensus that changes this. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.