Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mylene Sheath (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. Clear sense that this fails GNG and the Music argument hasn’t moved later voters. Spartaz Humbug! 17:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The Mylene Sheath
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

seems to be a passing mention. I found which also seems to be a passing mention. Sikonmina (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  11:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  12:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:MUSIC's sense of one of the more important indie labels. Chubbles (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I just added one reliable source to the article. One more would prove notability. Sikonmina (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * These are the steps you should be doing before nominating an article for deletion. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 06:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * These are steps people should be doing before they create an article. Sikonmina (talk) 06:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Bold 3rd relist, as the last AFD also resulted in a no consensus close. Are there enough sources to pass WP:BASIC? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 06:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, aside from the Billboard article, everything else I could find was a passing mention. As a result, it fails WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll note that, consistent with the wording at WP:MUSIC, the label released music from several indisputably notable bands over a period of a number of years - e.g., Caspian, If These Trees Could Talk, Jakob, Junius, and Pelican. There is regular media coverage of these releases, which discusses the label by name. The nominator nominated this for deletion less than one hour after the last AfD closed, because that closure encouraged him to do so; please see discussions here regarding carelessness and WP:CIVIL concerns about that editor. Chubbles (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you need to WP:AGF; my intention isn't to violate policy. You, however, are casting aspersions and that isn't WP:CIVIL. Sikonmina (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Happy to see the editor has turned a new leaf. Chubbles (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak delete. IMHO the entry is WP:USEFUL but not necessarily suited for Wikipedia, as I don't see how the company passes WP:NCOMPANY/WP:GNG? It exits, it released some albums, but that doesn't make it notable, does it? And if this Billboard coverage is "the best" we have, then the lack of notability is very evident (since it's pretty much just a short press release or a rehash of one). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  09:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:MUSIC suggests that "one of the more notable indies" can be judged by the importance of its roster and its length of operation, which is a more concrete guideline than NCORP (and, being closer to the expertise area, is more suitable). There's also some utility in being able to tie these artists together - they share an important attribute, of being on the same label, and without the label article acting basically as a list fulcrum, the artists would have to be linked together each on each page, which is awkward from an information-organization standpoint. Chubbles (talk) 12:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Chubbles Which takes me back to, well, what I said. This is useful but NMUSIC is just a supplement to GNG and in theory, GNG has precedence - NMUSIC just says "this kind of entity is likely to meet GNG so please do a throughout BEFORE"... And said BEFORE is not yielding sources showing WP:SIGCOV coverage, is it? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So there are lots of articles (I can find dozens) of the format "x band signs to Mylene Sheath", which is typically taken here to be SIGCOV of the band rather than the label, and I'm not really sure that's the right way to think about them. There aren't many in-depth, longform profiles of the label, but I've always argued that is not a reasonable expectation for this sort of notability question. As I noted, there are some practical utilities that are afforded by label articles when thought of basically as list articles; another way we could handle the info-org problem would be convert it to a category, but I'm sure someone would eventually bring that to CfD if there's no article to support the category. Ultimately, I guess the way I look at it is, this is a label that released some genuinely important music, and that is of encyclopedic interest; if our guidelines are preventing us from giving a robust account...well, that's what WP:IAR is for, no? Chubbles (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand your argument: does WP:MUSIC have any guidance on notability? Sikonmina (talk) 05:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , "There aren't many in-depth, longform profiles of the label". Wait, so there are some? Links? Also, SIGCOV aside, do we have any assessments? Did anyone say that this label is important or such? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak delete As per Piotr. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:25, 16 February 2022 (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.