Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonic Entity


 * 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. ‑Scottywong | yak _ 22:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Sonic Entity

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable band lacking non-trivial secondary support. References are mostly listing or brief mentions. Fails notability and associated guidelines. red dog six (talk) 14:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per Wikipedia:Notability (music), Criteria for musicians and ensembles §2, which states "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. This includes genre-specific charts.", to keep the article. The ranking was @Beatport, which appears to be a main source for this type of music genre. I also like to mention that the user reddogsix, repeatedly filed speedy deletion requests on said article, even after his first request has been undone by an administrator. In addition, there have been three editors contributing to the article, since creation. prokaryotes (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - It does not appear that Beatport is an independent entity. The site describes them as,  "Beatport is the largest music store for DJs in the world."  It appears their ranking of DJ's is based on downloads from their site.  Not exactly a national music chart. Perhaps others can chime in here about the validity of Beatport in this instance to support WP:NM.  red dog six  (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - Since national music charts do not include the related music genre, the emphasis is on "This includes genre-specific charts." In addition, he had so far 8 entries into the Top10 and one release was ranked 1st in the overall rankings. prokaryotes (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - It is clear it is a "genre-specific charts." What is not clear is if it is an independent national chart. If this is not independent, the number of items on it is irrelevant. red dog six  (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - In what way are "national music charts" considered independent? To my understanding, sales count. prokaryotes (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - Touché let's see what others say here. red dog six  (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Btw. the same rules as for other online music sales platforms, such as iTunes, Amazon Prime etc, should be acknowledged here. prokaryotes (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - Actually, no. Popularity does not equal Wikipedia notability.  Additionally, National charts are a combination of sales and polling.  red dog six  (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Charted. J 1982 (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. The 'This includes genre-specific charts' note appears to have been added to the guideline without first gaining consensus, so that argument's debatable. There is a list of recognised charts at Charts and the Beatport one is not on this list, and is not a country's national chart, so I would suggest that it is discounted here. --Michig (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - However, it does meet the general guidelines for suitable charts, since Beatport is a IFPI affiliate, and it covers sales. prokaryotes (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - But not a "not a country's national chart." Where do you see that being an IFPI affiliate is a criteria for acceptable chart?  red dog six  (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - What appears to be the latest report, from 2011 (see above PDF link), and has cites of Beatport to several countries. Re reddogsix, see this chapter regarding the guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Charts prokaryotes (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - OK, I see what you are talking about, but (and sorry to be a pain) since the ranking appears to be only taken from one source (beatport.com) the second item, "It covers sales or broadcast outlets from multiple sources" is not met. red dog six  (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think the multiple sources relates to "broadcast outlets" (which makes sense). In addition the bottom related link cites Beatport with iTunes and Spotify as a major distributor of digital music. Only because the graph wasn't updated with Beatport, shouln't mean we should execlude Beatport Charts, especially so when Beatport can be considered one of the few distributors offering a PsyTrance music chart. prokaryotes (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Notability is established per Criteria for musicians and ensembles §5 "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).", He released one album on Yellow Sunshine Explosion and another on BEN Records, both labels are around over a decade, and also many EP's on IONO, all three labels can be considered part of the gold standard of this indie genre and feature many DJ's, which are independently notable. prokaryotes (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Example of other notable DJ's from these labels, include ATMA (electronic musician) (YSE). website http://yellowsunshineexplosion.com/liveacts.php and http://www.plusquam-records.net/category/planet-ben/profile-planet-ben-records/ IONO Records (http://www.ionomusic.com/) features many of the most successful Progressive Trance artists from Germany, Israel and many other countries, who reguarly play on the main stages at indie music festivals around the world. prokaryotes (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Related

 * The Indie Musician's Guide To Digital Distribution prokaryotes --(talk) 18:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Proposed inclusion of Beatport, for genre-specific notability guidelines --prokaryotes (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Has not charted on a countries national chart, Beatport charts are BADCHARTS. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No pass on WP:MUSIC#5. Lacks evidence of either label having many independently notable performers. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete The article fails WP:GNG. Reliable secondary sources are not present in the article or online. The article also fails criteria 2 of WP:MUSICBIO. Beatport is not a national music chart and shouldn't be treated as such.  V e r s a c e 1 6 0 8   (Talk) 16:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

 Versace1608, but the article meets criteria 5 of WP:MUSICBIO, if you argue that the other label performers are not notable, you suggest that the entire genre isn't, since those performers are at the top of said genre (Progressive/PsyTrance). (per Bookings, Sales), and yes, many have coverage in reliable sources - for instance Protonica (i.e. http://www.nw-news.de/owl/kreis_minden_luebbecke/stemwede/stemwede/11224295_Irgendwie_ist_alles_anders.html). --prokaryotes (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The extent of coverage of Protonica in that link - "Sunday, 17.12 clock: The first festival-goers break down and make their way home. I'll stay until early evening and watch me the final sets of "Cubixx" and "Protonica", then it goes for me home." (Machine translation). Trivial coverage, does nothing to demonstrate notability of anyone. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This was just one example, there are many reviews and articles about Protonica, search for "Protonica trance review". --prokaryotes (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Then why did you supply such a terrible example? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

duffbeerforme, you did not researched the various artists, since many have coverage, check out "Protonica", "Egorythmia" or "Ritmo". --prokaryotes (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Protonica, Egorythmia, Ritmo. 3 is not many. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * How many artists do you suggest i have to mention - see above record label links to get more names - most of the names have coverage in the related media, check out ManMachine for another example, there are many indie related articles/reviews on this artist. --prokaryotes (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Many notable ones. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. . The subject of this article is simply not notable. Sonic Entity hasn't gained significant coverage in reliable sources. Your claim that he meets the fifth criteria of WP:MUSICBIO is inaccurate. I agree that Iono Music has been around for more than a few years. However, the roster of artists Iono Music houses are not independently notable. As a matter of fact, Iono Music isn't a notable record label. (Being around for a long time doesn't equate to notability). A Google search of the label fails to establish notability. FYI: Notability is not inherited. The Progressive/PsyTrance genre may be notable, but that doesn't mean Sonic Entity is.  V e r s a c e 1 6 0 8   (Talk) 02:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The entire Progressive/PsyTrance scene is dominated by a few labels, there are a few Israel labels, some oldschool labels. But in recent years, many of the main-stage artists are from Iono, and this is basically the first address when it comes to this kind of music, even for many Israel artists. You won't find a major related festival without these artists, the major compilations feature them and the related charts. For instance, another artist, "Side Effect" http://cttp.co.za/interviews/side-effects-iono-music-interview Yes, there is hardly any coverage in the main-stream media of these artist, and if only briefly. But all the independent media covering this music genre write about them, thus mostly about releases, festival lineups or interviews. If you and duffbeerforme argue that this isn't enough, then i have not much to add. On the bottom line i do not understand what is so bad to have this article, it won't hurt anyone, and it certainly has some credibility established. Cheers.--prokaryotes (talk) 04:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "Yes, there is hardly any coverage in the main-stream media of these artist, and if only briefly" drives home my point. Having significant coverage in the main stream media establishes notability. The independent media coverage that discusses Sonic Entity in detail needs to be added to article. The references currently in the article doesn't do that. Because of this, the notability of Sonic Entity is questionable. If you can add reliable sources to the article, I will change my decision.  V e r s a c e 1 6 0 8   (Talk) 15:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, though as a side-note i may add articles on Protonica and/or Iono, which are better covered in the media - i think i can establish notability there. If we going to delete this (SE) article, is it possible to re-create it from current content (once more RS emerges), or can i save it on my user pages, or do you suggest to save the content offline?. Thanks. --prokaryotes (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - As an entertainment historian I cannot find sources sufficient on mainstream searches or even in data bases meant only for researchers such as myself to validate notability. This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. The fact that the record labels have the subject on them does not make the subject notable. I cannot find any notables associated with those labels. The record labels may have a hint of notability and if anything this artists should be redirected and included into an article about the labels. Sorry, but this may even fall under WP:TOOSOON--Canyouhearmenow 13:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2014 (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.