Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planet Dog 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. Underground related topics are often borderline and lead to mixed opinions. I strongly recommend that those wishing to keep the article shore it up with references to prevent it coming back here. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Planet Dog Records

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unable to find reliable sources that discuss the company or indicate any sort of notability. Unreferenced at current, and I don't see that significantly changing. Primefac (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Worth pointing out that this has been completely unreferenced for a decade. It was declined for speedy deletion on the grounds that having multiple notable artists signed to the label was an indication of notability. Lets examine this claim...
 * Eat Static - has been around for a decade, has 10k of words based on 2 references, one of which is a single paragraph blurb on AllMusic.
 * Banco de Gaia - has been around since 2003, has two 'references', one of which is a Soundcloud page with no actual text.
 * Children of the Bong - has been around since 2006 as a seven sentence unreferenced stub, mostly about what the members did afterward.
 * TimeShard - has been around since 2003, only reference is a single paragraph on Allmusic.
 * Mark Barrott - has been around since 2006 as a two sentence unreferenced stub.
 * Let's please not drink the 'inherited notability' koolaid that seems common in music topics here (since they don't even appear to be vaguely notable either), and put this to a merciful death as the utter trivia that it is. Revent talk 17:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear. The decline was not that having the multiple artists with articles was a sign of notability.  It was declined because it is a sign of significance.  That is a much lower level than notability but enough to pass WP:A7.  -- GB fan
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. (t)  Josve05a  (c) 17:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. (t)  Josve05a  (c) 17:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. (t)  Josve05a  (c) 17:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. (t)  Josve05a  (c) 17:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per 's rationale abvoe. There has been no evidence this has been notable to last decade,and neither is there any now. It doesn not have inherited notability if one member of a band that was once a membery of a vaguly notable band. Notability doesn't work like that. Kill this thing before it spreads, or something. (t) Josve05a  (c) 17:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete with caution: Underground music is, by its nature, underground. It won't generate a lot of "reliable" sourcing, because the press that does notice it will be of the alternative sort. Therefore, on this walled garden, I agree with delete, but if we delete here, we are also suggesting that some of the Wikipedia articles on underground music that were probably written by contributors to that music or participants in those scenes with access to expert knowledge (and COI, of course), will have to go away until someone writes a book. . . or doesn't. . . fifteen years later and says, "I remember that there was also this and that." I.e. the notability and RS standards are going to have some weak spots on some subjects. (I say this as a veteran of the "Athens music" scene who now struggles to remember all the connections.) Hithladaeus (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is something to be said, yes, for the argument that something can be 'truly' notable without findable online references, but unfortunately in music topics this sometimes turns into a 'crystal ball' of potential notability, with the mere existence of bluelinks being used as the basis of notability for more articles... unreferenced stubs about bands, all their members, all their albums (and a navbox, of course) stretched out three or four jumps from any topic with established notability. There is a place for the accumulation of such information, but it's not Wikipedia... there are far too many music articles that merely consist of a track or album list copied from Allmusic. Wikipedia is not a trivia database, and it is not an appropriate place for unreferenced reminisces to be kept on the grounds that they might be unreferenced footnotes about a topic that some reliable source finally decided to write about, someday. Sorry if this seems like a rant, but... it really is, in a way. Revent talk 18:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I agree with you, especially in cases like these, where it looks like a walled garden is up. I was thinking, instead, that we have different notability guidelines for different subsets for good reason -- not assessing an academic the way we would a military officer, for example -- and underground culture can be verifiable and, indeed, "notable" without passing the same stringency as other articles. I completely agree in cases like this, though. (If you're ranting, I was musing.) Hithladaeus (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Has an entry in The Encyclopedia of Popular Music, which should be enough in itself, but as well as finding this on the first page of a GBooks search, the same page has two articles from CMJ . And those bands are not non-notable simply because the state of their articles is poor. --Michig (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: The first CMJ article mentions the Mammoth Records release of Dog's record. It's not about the label. It's about him as a legendary DJ and his first release on his own personal label. The second is, again, about Dog again, and, again, about that release of his material, which is being released in the US by a different distributor, but now with his imprint intact. All of that coverage testifies that the label founder deserves an article. CMJ is American, of course, so its interests are US college radio. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless these are sources that can be cited to verify facts in the article. You haven't mentioned why the entry in The Encyclopedia of Popular Music should be discounted. --Michig (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be polemical or disprove your case. I offered my judgment in good faith. I don't know The Encyclopedia of Popular Culture well enough to assess its validity and did not look at its entry to see whether it, too, was about the founder and not the label. This debate is about whether the label passes notability standards. I don't see it. You think it does. I don't think this is a place for arguing with each other. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete thing is - there's no detailed coverage in independent reliable sources with which to write a sensible article. -- ℕ  ℱ  19:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Except there is because there's an entry in The Encyclopedia of Popular Music - a print encyclopedia published by the Oxford University Press in one of its editions, and subjects covered in pucka print encyclopedias should be covered in Wikipedia. --Michig (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the critical word here is 'sources', as in plural. The entry you are mentioning is 215 words long, apparently, which is better than nothing, I guess, but can't exactly say much. It's a better claim to notability than it being 'inherited', though. Revent talk 19:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - I have added some sources, but it still doesn't meet GNG in its current state. Why keep then?  Because people are also starting to drink the GNG koolaid.  Notability is far more encompassing than GNG.  Note the label's heydey: 1993 - 1998.  This is pre-WWW and at the very infancy.  Likely sources common to this genre exist for the time period, and likely they have not been scanned/indexed by google books.  The encyclopedia entries, and the fact that they are significant enough to be mentioned by Billboard at all indicates a high likelihood of notability, and that sources probably exist.   78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 20:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * These are valid points, and I feel better about the existence of this now, even without any actual 'content' changes, merely because it's existence is now based on something other than 'well, someone created some unreferenced bluelinks'. It's less a matter of the 'six degrees of notability' argument that often comes up in the case of music articles now. Revent <b style="font-family:comic sans ms;color:#006400">talk</b> 22:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep newly added sources seem sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Artw (talk) 02:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Added a couple of more sources, and clarified the SPIN source with a link. Artw (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: Those newly added sources didn't do anything of the sort: they're casual mentions, and don't discuss the subject at ALL, let alone give it the "significant coverage" the GNG requires. (Far from "drinking the koolaid," the GNG is the fundamental interpretive guideline of WP:N and WP:V.  If you want to overturn it, this isn't the venue to do it in.)  My answer to Hithladaeus' comment about the innate under-the-radar of underground music brings up one of my pet peeves: when folks at AfD argue that a subject or a group which avoid the public eye ought to have the provisions of WP:V suspended in their favor, just because.  Sorry, but the proper answer is: "... then that means a Wikipedia article on the subject can't be sustained."  Nha Trang  Allons! 16:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a tendentious interpretation of what I was saying. Would The Great Speckled Bird be a "reliable source?" It's the reliable source used by historians of popular culture of the 1960's in the West Coast. If I agree to do a book on the history of the Atlanta punk scene, my reliable sources, other than interviews, will be Creative Loafing and half a dozen defunct free weeklies. No one would ask for Time Magazine to attest to Moby Grape, and the elder media do not retroactively cover the things they missed. Therefore, I was suggesting that people need to be intelligent about what constitutes a reliable source for a given subject. We have different standards for different endeavors. Heck a high school merely needs a roof to be automatically "notable" and deserving of an article, whether it graduates a single student or not. Hithladaeus (talk) 02:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, where are you seeing a WP:V problem exactly? Artw (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Right there.  Nha Trang  Allons! 16:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's plainly not the case. Artw (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Egads, nobody's looking to overturn the GNG guidline. First, it is a guideline.  Not a policy.  Not a rule.  This guideline is to help keep out articles that don't deserve an encyclopedia entry per WP:NOT.  It is one of the best guidelines on Wikipedia.  Meeting GNG kills AfDs dead. (apologies to the distinguished editor, whom I can't remember, who stated this gem on their user page)  However, if that were the only criteria, then there would be no reason for AfD debates at all, only debates about what constitutes a reliable source, or what the precise definition of "in depth" is.  The long-standing position has been that a record label of significant tenure (never defined) which has released material by several (again, not defined) notable artists is presumed notable because it has measurably impacted musical culture.  It is therefore worthy of an encyclopedia article.  The original nominator was concerned that this label might be part of a walled garden, and in fact the "multiple notable acts" signed by the label were not notable at all.  These are valid concerns.  However, based upon the verifiabilty of the information presented, I am of the opinion that the label deserves an encyclopedia entry.  Further, an entire article can and been created, not just a definition, per the first bullet in WP:WHYN, and merging the topic into another subject does not appear viable.  Furthermore, my point is in fact that it is likely that GNG is satisfied by the existence of the articles present already, but they are likely offline.  WP:NEXIST.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 17:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * First off, that plainly IS the case: what reliable sources that've been offered up do you claim provide "significant coverage" of the subject? Second, WP:V (which is a policy, for those of you scoring at home) requires that those sources be provided -- not just alleged that they might possibly maybe exist somewhere -- and puts the burden of proof on editors wanting to keep articles.  Third, yeah, GNG is a guideline.  So what?  What irreparable harm to the encyclopedia are you alleging will take place if it isn't set aside in this case?  That people'll have to Google this tiny, ephemeral indie label and go to its website to find out about it instead of searching for it here?  You need rather more than "The GNG is getting in my way for keeping an article I want to keep" for a rationale.  Nha Trang  Allons! 16:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you even looking at the article or the sources provided therein? WP:V isn't even at issue, the claims within the article are currently verified by the sources, the sources listed are reliable.   78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 16:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * NukeThePukes, I'm going to remind you that being caught in a lie is not cause of become WP:UNCIVIL, furthermore because your claims of a a WP:V problem are false I'm going to ask the closing admin to disregard your vote. Artw (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Leaning more delete - I thought about this a while and I think although it took this long to finally get sources in the article, my searches (News, Books, Newspapers Archive, highbeam and thefreelibrary) evidently found nothing else with this (Books) being the best. Indeed, underground stays to the meaning "underground". I would've suggested moving elsewhere but I'm not seeing a good target aside from its artists. SwisterTwister   talk  18:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking at the sources the club nights might be more significant than the label, since the label is spun out of them. I can find more Megadog specific sources that are actually online, which might help as so many of the present sources for Planet Dog not being online seems to an issue. Artw (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. The sources added since the start of this AfD are enough to meet our guideline for inclusion. — sparklism hey! 13:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Has a measurable cultural importance in recent British history. apropos an earlier comment by Hithladaeus, the "elder" media *do*, at least in the UK, quite often retrospectively cover the things they missed; roughly since the emergence of Tony Blair, you can find many articles in newspapers like the Times covering stuff they would have ignored when it was new, which can sometimes be a help when it comes to sourcing (though the Melody Maker digital archive we were once promised would be better still, of course). RobinCarmody (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2015 (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.