Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indaba Music


 * 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. Ultimately, it seems that enough reliable-source coverage has been found to demonstrate the subject's notability. The neutrality of the article going forward is clearly a valid concern, but it's a concern that must be solved by diligent editing rather than deletion in this instance. ~ mazca  talk 20:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Indaba Music

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:WEB. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than to promote indabamusic.com. Was speedied previously as spam under WP:CSD. References given are to splogs that do not confer notability; and to press releases that do not count as reliable sources. Others seem to be merely trivial coverage or mentions. Nothing more than Self-promotional Advertisement masquerading as an article (complete with linkfarm) and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Am I speaking with the Editor or not? Is this the correct forum to discuss this issue? I will edit the page to include reliable and prominent news sources. Recently I have been trying to include information throughout Wikipedia concerning a larger issue, the changes to copyright law and content creation that are undergoing in the music business. Indaba Music has been noted by the Press (look at their page - http://www.indabamusic.com/corporate/press) as the leader in this area of collaboration and content creation using Creative Commons. Like the profiles of any other related business such as Apple, this one is valid and does not warrant deletion. It has been re-created in an attempt to allow the world to access information, like any other posts. I have read the Wikipedia guidelines and feel that I have meet them. Please explain any specific concern. Talkin bout chicken (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Indaba Music has been edited appropriately. Please confirm that the changes are acceptable.  I have tried very carefully to adhere to all Wikipedia policies. Thank you,Talkin bout chicken (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  —Hu12 (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  —Hu12 (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

Are there any objections to the revised version of the article?Talkin bout chicken (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep. On the right track here. NPOV issues are minor, if any. Further third-party coverage in the future will hopefully allow for greater article expansion. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 07:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the vote. When will the deletion notices be taken down? Talkin bout chicken (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 23:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Speedy Delete as this article fails WP:SPAM; the article subject (the company) is playing second fiddle to the promotion of its products. None of the sources cited are reliable; they all orginate from own press releases or self-published sources, and it appears that nothing has actually been published about this company. Self-promotion is not the route to establishing notability in accordance with WP:CORP. Notability to come, perhaps. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There have been many unbiased, new articles and mentions that include the topic of the article. The major news corporations listed as press sources are reliable and HAVE published verifiable articles.  I will list these articles and link directly to the original news sources for clarity.  208.105.67.138 (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The news sources have been listed and linked directly to the original, unbiased source. The sources include highly reputable publications and websites.  They do not qualify as self-promotion as these news companies are not part of the business which is the topic of the article.  Talkin bout chicken (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The problem I have with this article is that its subject matter (the company) is not the subject of any significant coverage, and news sources, whilst they may be reliable sources, are little more than routine announcements in the form of content provided by the company itself (they all seem to feature comments from Daniel Zaccagnino, a director) that are not evidence of notability in accordance with WP:SPAM. It seems to me that this article that should be about a company is merely being used to promote the company's website and provide some publicity for its directors. Self-promotion does not to provide evidence that the company is notable in accordanc with WP:CORP; there has to be evidence that the company has been "noted" by sources outside the company. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Clearly fails WP:CORP. References given are to splogs that do not confer notability; and to self-published press releases that do not count as reliable sources. Others seem to be merely trivial coverage or mentions. Additionaly this is one part in a long history of spam and promotion on wikipedia by Indaba Media, LLC.;


 * Articles
 * Accounts
 * Accounts


 * Nothing more than Self-promotional Advertisement masquerading as an article--Hu12 (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment It looks like Hu12 added back previously edited sections to make the article look worse before writing the comment above this one. I fixed the language and content so that it is far less self-promotional-if at all.  There are some notable and very interesting news items that I pulled to try to illustrate the company.  It looks like there is reasonable news and sources but that some interviews were perhaps mixed in.  Also, it makes sense that when news sources cover a company, they try to get an interview or at least a quote from one of its leaders.  Of course, I also found articles that just talk about the company and compare it to other similar companies.  I also compared it to Amiestreet which I think is similar in terms of size, industry, and the rest.  What do you think? If I may, I say Keep 24.34.72.114 (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC) — 24.34.72.114 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. Clearly an attempt to Mask the lack of notability thru bombardment of press releases, self-generated sources as it is clear that no significant coverage in secondary sources has "actually" been published about this company.--Hu12 (talk) 05:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I will review your concerns and see what is crux of the issue. Talkin bout chicken (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The following is lengthy simply because I believe we are talking past each other and are ignoring the facts of the situation. Hopefully this clears it up:

I see your point about the content of the news sources, some were not relevant to the article. I included the ones that are, which do not seem to be derived from press releases and are also from notable sources. My intentions as the guidelines state have always been to follow the rules set forth. It seems to me that when a business has significant use of its products as well as traffic and also has reliable new coverage that appears (granted neither of us can determine why the authors wrote their articles) to be simply because the business is notable, than an article is deserved. Specifically, please consider these articles.

The LA Times wrote this in 2007, so although dated, it is an evaluation of the business again another competing business, illustrating the key players in the small but growing market of online music collaboration. http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/newmedia/la-ca-webscout19aug19,1,5973343.story?coll=la-entnews-newmedia&ctrack=3&cset=true

Business Week included Indaba in a similar, but much more extensive article. This is without quotes or press release as far as I can tell. Note that although competitors are listed, Indaba was chosen as the focus of the piece (slide 6 of 6). Again, at the time the site was far less used, but a niche has never precluded relevancy of a topic in any other encyclopedia that I've seen. And note that today, the user base has grown to a much larger number, and I'm sure we could find traffic numbers to also support this distinct part of relevancy. http://images.businessweek.com/ss/07/07/0727_mozes/index_01.htm

The Washington Post wrote about Indaba the same here and similarly compared it to other online music sites. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/21/AR2007072100099.html?sub=new

I am also aware that Notability means impact and that Notability is not a matter of opinion.

Therefore, we should be able to use facts to resolve this issue. Since those articles were written, the site has grown from 5,000 (see Business Week) to 350,000 (see site. On Feb 3, 2009, as a testament to the growth and notability of Indaba Music, Wired Magazine (an industry news source) wrote an article describing the company's recent interview on the Colbert Report.  http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/02/indaba-music-go/  I am certain we can agree that Colbert is not a legitimate news source.  However, the show's profitability relies on connecting with as many people as possible, so therefore it is in Colbert's best interest to invite notable and unique people.  The point demonstrates how Indaba Music's growth has led it to become more prominent in it's industry.

From a neutral point of view, we could also discuss the level of musicians who have chosen to work with Indaba Music or simply to be part of the site. I deleted a list of famous musicians who use Indaba because I did not know if it was appropriate for the article. However, consider that popular artists across genres - people who have Wikipedia entries that are already deemed notable have worked with Indaba Music or use the website of their own fruition. For example Mariah Carey, Yo-Yo Ma, T-Pain, Rivers Cuomo, and others. The original list is much longer, though I doubt all of them already have articles - these are merely highlights that I have read about.

I believe that it is important to Give an article a chance because it seems that this conversation began when I was a) still editing the article b) still learning what information is important and necessary and c) still learning what information is not relevant. To me, the company has been noted and evaluated by relevant sources, has a large and proven growing group of users, and works with the highest level of talented musicians.  I am happy to continue this conversation, but let's please focus on the facts because Notability is not a matter of opinion.  I believe that anyone reading the article now for the first time as it currently stands would find it reasonable and perhaps only in need of minor edits.

Thank you Talkin bout chicken (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:CORP Niteshift36 (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The references in the article prove that this company does not fail WP:CORP. Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sources are plentiful. Seems quite notable.-- Pink Bull  20:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per the plentiful coverage in reliable sources. See this article from the Los Angeles Times, this article from the Christian Science Monitor, this article from the New York Sun, and this article from Vator. Notability is fully established. Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cunard. Those sources alone would be sufficient to establish some notability. It's a little thin, I think, but it'll do. Mind that the article is neutral in tone, and that it remains non-promotional, and I don't think we'll have any further issues. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 16:18, 27 January 2010 (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.