Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Popboomerang (2nd nomination)


 * 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 delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Popboomerang
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NCORP. Minor independent record label with very few notable artists, contrary to the claims at the last AFD 9 years ago. Geschichte (talk) 10:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Popboomerang Records is one of Australia's most recognised small independent record lables, with several releases by notable artists. The article is now referenced, supporting its notability.Dan arndt (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Where is the several releases? The article says that 7 notable artists released 14 records, that's not much at all, that's actually very little. Geschichte (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep I've expanded the article, I've tried to track down references for nearly all releases (some of these are brief mentions e.g. AllMusic listing or release info). Some substantial, independent references have also been supplied, typically for 10th anniversary, 100th release or Various Artist compilations. There are more than 7 notable artists providing more than 14 records. How many are sufficient?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I know you've put in a ton of work referencing all the releases *but* we need references that talk about the *company* itself in order to meet the criteria for establishing notability - see WP:NCORP. Also you might find that going from 7 references to 67 references is not always considered an improvement especially if they're all pointing to announcements about records and artists... see MOS:OVERLINK and WP:REFBOMB.  HighKing++ 21:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * weak keep I'd consider this to be more than sufficient personally, but I can understand the opposite perspective here. It's a tricky case, since discussion about the company is almost always indirect, due to the very nature of the industry (unless there's controversy of course, but it seems wrong to only allow for coverage of modern record labels who have done controversial things). I might be wrong here, but that's my personal take. Yitz (talk) 04:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on recent improvements? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀 Locomotive207 - talk  🌀  00:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *about the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria, most are referencing the music produced by the company or the artists (announcements, etc) or there's the odd quote/interview with someone affiliated with the company but nothing that meets our criteria for notability of the company itself. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 21:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Despite the impressive efforts by, the new references do not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The AllMusic references demonstrate only that the albums were references but WP:ITEXISTS is not enough to demonstrate notability under the applicable standards. The best sources about the company or its principals are brief one-paragraph passing mentions. Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 21:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment above, questioned the number notable artists and their releases. Indicating there were not enough notable artists. In my vote above I've specified that AllMusic listings (and some similar refs) are largely to support releases per Artists and Discography sections. However, I also added other references, which do describe the label and its releases in more detail. I dispute the interpretation that the new references do not demonstrate significant coverage or that they are not reliable, independent sources.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Response "Independent" has two elements. The first is corporate independent - fair enough, no corporate links between the reporting entity and the topic company. The second element is "Independent Content" (defined in WP:ORGIND) and I included a summary above. None of your references are independent because none provide "Independent Content" *about the company*. For example, articles that rely entirely on interviews with no analysis/opinion by the author fail ORGIND. We need more than mentions-in-passing or two lines saying Thurling founded the topic company - we require an in-depth article on the topic company (not the founder nor the artists or albums) containing "Independent Content". If you still believe there are references which meet the criteria for establishing notability, please include links to the best WP:THREE below so we can look at them.  HighKing++ 22:46, 14 November 2021 (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.