Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mutant Pop 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 procedural close. Disruptive nomination made by socking user, riddled with a very suspicious amount of anonymous IPs. If a proper request is required, please feel free to open one after this close. (Note: This close has no bearing on any future AFDs regarding this article.) &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 18:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Mutant Pop Records

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

DELETE Promotional article for personal (failed) business of a Wikipedia user who has edited this article extensively. Sources cited are unreliable and insufficient for WP:ORG Mohsinpathania (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know what's going on, but this seems like a personal grudge. See Articles for deletion/Florence Devouard (3rd nomination).    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 16:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know what's going on either. The nominator here also nominated another article whose notability has not been demonstrated and is not easily demonstrable, and so this must be a personal grudge? Unless anyone can substantiate the basis of these personal attacks against the nominator then I would say that something smells pretty bad in the way that that editor has been vilified here and elsewhere. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I explained my reasons for doubting the nominator's motivations in my recommendation. The nominator was recently indeffed over at Commons for his disruptive behavior. Here, the editor has a very short contribution history consisting almost exclusively of nominating for deletion pages with admitted COIs by Wikipedia administrators. The pattern of behavior looks suspicious and pointy to me.  Rebb  ing   19:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't anyone look for COIs by Wikipedia administrators, and nominate articles for deletion when the sources don't stack up? People do the same with people who are not Wikipedia administrators and are congratulated for doing so. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You twist my words. I'm not objecting to editors who choose to pursue sysop-involved COI issues. Instead, I'm saying that it appears that the nominator has made this series of nominations to retaliate or to prove some point, and I find it difficult to believe that this is the nominator's first or only account. Moreover, I wasn't aware that we congratulated anyone, long-standing editors included, for pursuing COI bogeyman when the conflicts have been plainly disclosed. I concede that, on the merits, the subject does not appear to be notable.  Rebb  ing   20:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you believe that the subject does not appear to be notable then why is there still a bolded "keep" by your contribution below? This discussion is about the article and its subject. Discussions about editor behaviour belong elsewhere. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe that a bad-faith nomination is an appropriate basis for retention: as I see it, discouraging disruption is more important than removing non-notable articles. Because neither of the editors supporting the nomination are able to nominate articles themselves, closing this as keep would not be an exercise in futility.  Rebb  ing   21:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course I can nominate an article for deletion - I simply have to register a silly pseudonym rather than reveal where I am editing from. I'm sure that wouldn't take more than a few seconds. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't see how an article covering a failed business venture can be promotional. did not create the article; his conflict is declared on the talk page; and his changes are constructive and neutral.   Rebb  ing   02:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - It could be sourced but I don't care much about Socky the Grudgester coming back to WP after registering exactly one year ago to settle some score. Delete it or not, whatever. Carrite (talk) 03:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC) P.S. Calling MP a "business" misses the point of the 100+ releases entirely. Carrite (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's none of my business, but I wouldn't mind hearing the background on the nominator. Exactly one year ago from what? As another contributor has commented on the apparent impropriety of this nomination, I believe whatever you're willing to provide would be relevant to this discussion.  Rebb  ing   04:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * THIS. Carrite (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the impropriety of the nomination. Cf. WP:SKCRIT point 2. In my estimation, the article's notability is debatable—not clearly lacking, not obviously established—but I do not believe it's appropriate to reach that question under the circumstances.
 * I do not make such an accusation lightly, but I believe it's necessary in this case. The nominator's contributions to English Wikipedia speak for themselves: few new users begin their editing careers by nominating articles for deletion. But far more troubling is his record on Commons, where his account has been as an account "used exclusively for disruption" (emphasis added). (His talk page and contributions provide more details, if any are needed.)   Rebb  ing   04:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: I'm not recommending speedy retention per Criterion 2; I'm voting for retention based on suspicious behavior by analogy ("cf.") to Criterion 2. My argument is not invalidated by the fact that we now have an uninvolved editor recommending deletion; however, as an argument not grounded in policy or guidelines, I expect the closer will give my position little, if any, weight.  Rebb  ing   19:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken Sir. I was clearly blocked on Commons for requesting a deletion for monkey selfie image. My ground was that the EXIF data (Copyyright Management Information) had been stripped out in breach of USC code by a Commons bureuacrat and sysop to misrepresent that the image was authored in 2011, and not 2008 as published on NBCNEWS.COM. I am presently in active correspondence with your Websites legal counsel over this block and related issues, and certain clarifications have already been provided to me by Shri Rogers (Legal Counsel for Wikipedia). I am not at all describable as a vandal or disruptive person for pointing out breaches of Foundation Terms of Usage and US laws applicable to your esteemed website,and I am not in any edit war on your website. Mohsinpathania (talk) 06:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - length of operation and number of releases involving notable bands indicates cultural significance. For what it's worth, this is one of the few punk labels I've actually heard of before being forced to learn about so many here in Wikipedialand.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 16:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * DELETE - No reliable sources. Non-notable 1 man show with article created by owner and "friends" who hurl WP:NPAs like "Socky the Grudgemaster" 120.56.114.246 (talk) 10:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note to Admin in response to Malcolmxl5 below. The first edit of Carrite is relevant for WP:DUCK considering Carrite's NPA remark return of Socky the Grudgester directed against the nominator - WP:BOOMERANG. Is there any reliable source that Tim Davenport and Timbo Chandler are the same person ? 120.56.118.252 (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I never claimed article is create by 'Carrite'. In actualment the creation and early edits for this article are by User:CDaniel and were "sourced" (if that is the right term) to this Internet trash article and the alleged owner of the business is "Timbo Chandler". CDaniels account (from his user page) appears to have a WP:COI with this article or alternatively with account User:Carrite which was opened later and whose first edit shows a remarkable familiarity of Wikipedia sintax. So who is the founder of this business Timbo Chandler or Timbo Davenport needs to be resolved in view of acuracy of encylcopedia. Thank you Mohsinpathania (talk) 04:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Nominator appears to be going through articles with declared COIs and nominating them for deletion without checking sources. The sources used here are certainly independent, though I can't speak of their reliability. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Why are you shying away from speaking of their reliability ? It is certainly a serious problem if Wikipedia insiders are allowed special privileges when it comes to articles about non-notable selves or their non-notable organisations. Mohsinpathania (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What sources are there that you claim that the nominator hasn't checked? The ones in the article seem to be pretty junky, and well below the standard demanded for sourcing of articles outside the Anglosphere, such as Alexander Solodukha (deletion discussion) or Crazy Eyes Crew (deletion discussion). There may be some history with the nominator that I'm unaware of but I see no reason why we can't discuss this nomination on its merits rather than assume bad faith on the part of the nominator. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sources in the article are woefully inadequate for substantiating notability, being, at best, passing mentions of the subject in dubiously reliable sources, and my own searches, which include checking out the ones automatically linked by the nomination statement, find nothing in any reliable source with more than a passing mention of the subject. Please note that this invalidates the ridiculous claim above that this discussion is subject to WP:SKCRIT point 2, because I am an uninvolved editor (if you don't believe me check my contributions since my ISP last changed my IP address in December 2015) and have called for deletion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * CDaniels lists articles that he has created or contributed to on his user page, a common practice. This does not show that he has a COI with either this article or with Carrite. Carrite's first edit is of no relevant to this discussion. Please restrain yourself to discussion on whether the article is able to meet Wikipedia's article policies and guidelines. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * IP 120.56.118.252, I repeat "Please restrain yourself to discussion on whether the article is able to meet Wikipedia's article policies and guidelines." Talk of first edits, and DUCKS, and BOOMERANGS is not doing that. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with your plea to concentrate on discussion of whether the article is able to meet Wikipedia's article policies and guidelines, but that advice should be directed to all participants in this unseemly spat, on both "sides", not just 120.56.118.252. Nearly every comment above (apart from mine, of course) fails to assume good faith and to contentrate on the issue at hand. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete and Draft to someone who needs it if at all as my searches found nothing better and this could still need improvements but I'm not convincingly seeing how these can be made. SwisterTwister   talk  22:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Onel 5969  TT me 12:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Needs work, but I believe the subject meets WP:GNG.  Everything on Earth ends in "failure", i.e., death.--Milowent • hasspoken  04:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Which sources do you believe make the subject meet WP:GNG? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  21:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Although this is currently troubled with votes, I still should note this currently still questionable for the needed improvements....regardless of any user troubles. SwisterTwister   talk  04:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Punk labels. Sources are unreliable, especially internet forum posts and so on. Since this is an historical subject (1990s punk), if the label is/was notable, we should expect to read about it in several of the many books covering the topic. However, the only source I could find, "Punks: A Guide to an American Subculture", is conspicuous for not discussing it. The label's owner is mentioned only in one sentence, where he is quoted regarding the notability of a radio show/DJ. So in fact there seems to be a reliable source that indicates that it's not particularly notable! But that doesn't mean all the information must be discarded, and some of the sources could be used as citations for facts, if not for notability. A large proportion of the articles in the Category:Punk record labels have even less evidence of notability for dedicated articles, but it would be a mistake to simply delete them en masse. Taken together, they are a notable subject, and the articles contain much valuable information. I would suggest creating Punk labels at least as a stub, and doing a WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT in order to retain the existing information for possible merging into it. In general, I think WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT rather than WP:PROD or AfD, should be the first line approach to article subjects that don't meet notability criteria, but still have useful information. If there are problems with it being reverted, by COI editors for example, that can be dealt with by the usual COI or content dispute procedures. WP:PROD should be reserved for articles that are clearly completely useless, and a formal AfD for notability should only be considered if WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT is legitimately contentious. -- IamNotU (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2016 (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.