Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juice Box 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 m e rge to A Guy Called Gerald. east. 718 at 08:17, December 22, 2007

Juice Box Records

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable. The only thing decent here is the person who started it. The label has since thus become dead.(any bands on it..no) Metal Head (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, unsourced, no notability established. Cirt (talk) 19:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep and expand. I've added some further, sourced information to the article, and it seems notable as a pioneering label in Jungle and Drum & Bass. The fact that the label is no longer operating is irrelevant with respect to notability, by the way.--Michig (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable  C t j f 8 3  talk 21:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've expanded the article significantly. It seems to me there is sufficient notability and plenty of sources.--Michig (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Even with improvements by User:Michig, I don't see how this label is notable.  None of the artists "released" by this label are notable (with the exception of the owner.  Delete as non-notable.   Keeper   |   76  22:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * All of the releases on this label are either Gerald himself, or Gerald with collaborators including Goldie and Finley Quaye, so they are all by notable artists in that respect. --Michig (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - With the sources that Michig added, it looks like the subject has enough secondary coverage. It's now a well-sourced article with no reason to delete. Also the (lack of) notability of artists on the label doesn't affect the label's notability. -FrankTobia (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure it does. Labels exist to make their artists notable.  If none are notable (or very few even), then the label is either a)too new for notability, or b)not good at their job, or c)crippled by bad luck and bad talent  - it all leads to them suffering the same likely fate: d)not being in business much longer. (and they haven't been for almost 10 years.)
 * As for source: Source one that is cited to make the claims of "genre-defining" - it is far from reliable. It's home page stays clearly that it is "for hire".  They are simply a fluff outfit that you can pay to say nice things about you.  Simple PR.   Hardly reliable.
 * Source two is self published by Gerald.
 * Source three, "Discogs" is community based (read:unreliable - I can add myself to Juice Box if I try hard enough).
 * Source 4, Samurai.fm, as far as I can tell, has artist reviews that are written by the artists themselves. At best, they are fluff pieces and not fact checked well . (see comment below)
 * Source 5 is allmusic, which has repeatedly been viewed as unreliable per our own guidelines in their assertions (editable site)
 * Source 6 is a press release published by Gerald.
 * All in all, the sources at best assert the notability of A Guy Called Gerald, and not Juice Box Records anyway, even if they were reliable. All in all, I have no problem with this article staying if it gets reliable sourcing.  I've tried, but can only find the like quality stuff that Michig found. It's just not to standards, IMO.  Where is the indepedent coverage of the label in reliable, fact-checked, independent sources?  Those are the key to notability. Cheers,  Keeper   |   76  17:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited. As I was saying, the notability of artists on the label, or the lack thereof, doesn't confirm or deny the notability of the label itself. -FrankTobia (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct that some of the sources are not independent. The Melody Maker and Echoes articles are independent. They are reproduced on the web, but can be verified by referring to the original printed publications. The Allmusic reference is to a review. Beyond sales figures, reviews are an important source of coverage for artists, records and labels. By definition they are one person's opinion, and as long as they are used to present critical opinion rather than facts, that seems reasonable. The last reference is there to back up a statement made by Simpson describing his approach to the label. It seems to me it's reliable for that purpose. Before yesterday, I knew very little about A Guy Called Gerald beyond "Voodoo Ray", but have managed to improve the article, albeit not to your satisfaction. If we could get a few editors involved who have more knowledge in this area, it seems likely the article could be brought up to scratch. If the result of the discussion is delete, the content here could be merged into A Guy Called Gerald at least as Juice Box represents an important phase of his career. --Michig (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies Michig, I completely missed the Melody Maker reference, and I agree that it is a reliable resource. However, as referenced, and upon reading the article, it only establishes the notability of Gerald (which is not being contested), It's written as a "what's Gerald been up to" and it only mentions that he happens to have started a label, therefore, IMO, it does not establish notability for Juice Box Records.   Based on the article's improvement, I would support a merge to the Gerald article as it was obviously an important move in his life. to go from Sony to independent for artistic reasons.  Thanks for your work, Michig. I'd never heard of Gerald (or Voodoo Ray or Juicebox for that matter) prior to the wonderful world of wikipedia.  Cheers,  Keeper   |   76  19:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This seems to be a sourced article about a record label that did important work making a musical genre popular. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 03:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep  New sources illustrate the notability of the article. -- Shark face  217  01:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Keeper evaluation of sources, Secret account 22:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect (which is technically a "keep", I believe). I've been bold and gone ahead and moved the information to the article A Guy Called Gerald, since it is footnoted and useful. I've not changed this article to a redirect in deference to the process; if the closing admin agrees with the redirect, then that would be the appropriate point to put a redirect in place. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Tavix (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete If it had better sources....maybeMbisanz (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2007 (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.