Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QStik 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 delete. Jaranda wat's sup 05:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

QStik Records

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable per WP:N or WP:MUSIC, no independent sources available per WP:RS. The West Australian article is about WAM in general. Of the listed bands, only Fourth Floor Collapse is notable, and there is no evidence anywhere that they were associated with this label (Edit: confirmed they were not associated). Orderinchaos 01:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Orderinchaos 01:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I'm not entirely sure if there is such a thing as a non-notable record company - by definition they exist to fulfil a need. Category:Australian record labels must surely include just about every one in existence.  &mdash;Moondyne 02:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I was meaning specifically against Wikipedia's guidelines. For comparison's sake, Firestarter Music is of about the same size and prominence within Perth, has three highly notable bands on board, but has no article as it itself is not notable. Orderinchaos 02:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I realised that. They're guidelines only. &mdash;Moondyne 02:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Dan arndt 03:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Article creator and nominator have discussed the notability issue briefly at Talk:QStik Records. &mdash;Moondyne 02:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources are enough to indicate notability for mine. Capitalistroadster 02:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Note: Ref to West Australian doesn't include "stik" or "phantom" anywhere in the text. It's about Sonicbids and WA Music. It only supports the statement "Adam Scott (manager of The Panda Band)" - ie is totally irrelevant to the subject at hand. The second reference is a directory listing.Garrie 05:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into Phantom_Records. The links are give only trivial support to this subject.  More third-party coverage is needed to establish enough notability for a separate article.  -- aBSuRDiST  -T ☺ C- 03:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe that the article is notable for the following reasons:
 * The record label has assisted in identifying, promoting a number of Western Australian bands nationally and internationally - notably The Panda Band.
 * Bands on the QStik label (New Rules For Boats, Rollerskates, Faith In Plastics, The Panda Band) have recieved national and international airplay.
 * Bands on the QStik label have won a number of awards, including WAM Song of the Year & West Australian Music Industry Awards.
 * The founder of QStik Records, Adam Scott, was nominated for a 'Golden WAMI' for his contribution to the Western Australian music industry and QStik Records nominated for 'Best WA Record label' at the 2007 West Australian Music Industry Awards.
 * Delete or at worst Merge to Phantom Records. Clearly non-notable small label with a number of small bands, which is unverifiable from any measure of independent sources per WP:N WP:V WP:RS. The Panda Band's manager was instrumental in forming the label, so it is a tautology to say it "identified and promoted" the band, as it was in effect an arm of the band. The other three bands listed are barely or not notable and to say that far-band community radio represents "national and international airplay" is stretching it (having worked at a community radio station myself, I can say we played just about anything we were sent, and about 300 dedicated listeners cared.) Until these bands are on PMFM like Little Birdy, John Butler Trio, Jebediah, Karnivool, Birds of Tokyo, Eskimo Joe, The Waifs, Nathan Gaunt and however many other Perth bands *can* meet this standard, the label can't even claim to have local market penetration, let alone vague claims of international. Zivko85 05:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Added comment I have checked independent sources and not *one* confirms the label's notability, beyond WAMI itself, which alone would not be sufficient. The label fails my Factiva test of notability - not a *single* result in any newspaper anywhere in the world, even small ones. The fact that every article down to supplements from the West Australian (the main newspaper of record in its home state with an extensive gig guide) is in there back to 1996, and the Sunday Times to 2001, is really not convincing me this article should be here. Widening the search to just "QStik" or "Q Stik" brings up companies that make Bluetooth compatible equipment in the UK and an Eastern States band with no relation to the label (believe it or not, there is a band called A-Q-Stik.) Compare this to John Butler Trio - I can find a reference to them in December 1999, long before they became the famous band they are today. Zivko85 06:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The international airplay relates to The Panda Band who have had airplay on Xfm London, BB 6 radio and various FM stations around the US such as:


 * WUOG 90.5fm - Athens, Georgia
 * WRUR 88.5fm - Boulder, Colarado
 * Delete Once again, we wonder why wikipedia is mocked, once again - another half baked article. Fails WP:N and yes. Thank you. Twenty Years 13:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Reporting a blatant attempt of canvassing on this AfD which I have become aware of. There are numerous others in recent days, but these two are the most obvious:
 * 1)  "Am happy to see if I can help you out with the above - get it into some form that maybe acceptable - would appreciate if you could assist by supporting the retention of the following Articles for deletion/QStik Records and Articles for deletion/This Vital Chapter".
 * 2)  "Thanks for the support - appreciated, Could you also make comment regarding Articles for deletion/QStik Records as well?" Zivko85 08:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In my defense - firstly you will note my comments regarding support for the article was deleted, upon realising that I was breaching the requirements regarding canvassing (as I was not aware of the requirements). Secondly the other comment is only seeking the user provides feedback not that the user supports the retention - as that is clearly up to that user. This form of cnavassing is acceptable as it is limited & unbiais Dan arndt 09:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - searching through news archives and google shows that there is very little written about them. Clearly fails to have sufficient reliable sources. Fails Notability (organizations and companies) and particularly the line "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." in the general notability guidelines - Peripitus (Talk) 22:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete, I feel that they should be notable, but I just can't find the required WP:RS on them. Lankiveil 13:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete non notable label. DanielT5 03:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable label. Keb25 11:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete view - we have had the benefit of a useful talk page discussion. The pivotal point to me is that if the label was notable it would have been written up in a significant, reliable source and this is not in evidence. Bridgeplayer 22:49, 31 July 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.