Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Ripple Music - Knowledge

Source 📝

561:
Sludgelord and Encyclopaedia Metallum. It appears that the call for deletion stems from a lack of familiarity with this particular metal subculture, especially given the updated references. Furthermore, keep in mind that a record label's purpose is to release and distribute music -- so while the organization itself may get less press coverage than the bands/artists it represents, it has a significant role in content creation and audience engagement within its particular subgenre. Ripple has released hundreds of musical works over the past decade in the doom/stoner genres, working with bands around the globe. A flag to improve citations would have been more appropriate for this article than a call for deletion. See, for instance, the Knowledge pages for Nuclear Blast and Metal Blade Records.
744:, I found some interesting discussion about notability and sourcing. It appears that other users have run into similar debates. Here is an excerpt from that section, posted in 2019: "Record labels are not specifically covered with their own section in WP:MUSIC, and there is no consensus about how to do so (I attempted, once, and failed). WP:MUSIC does have language in the section on artists that gives the only real guidance about judging notability - length of operation and significance of roster, taken holistically. There are very few people actively working on record label articles - I'm one of the most active, and most of what I do is watch over a bunch of them to ward off vandalism and overly-hasty deletion, rather than write new articles or work on sourcing." That was from 1119:. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. Also nothing where there is "inherited" notability so the inference that they have signed notable acts only points to the notability of the act, not of the company that signed them. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. If some of the Keep !voters can produce a couple of good references that they are sure meets 52:. What an absolute mess, to be honest. There is a handful of policy-based arguments in amongst a heck of a lot of very average arguments below. I can't find a consensus at all, plus the article has changed somewhat during the debate, making it even harder. Would recommend that, if this is relisted in the near future, the nominator requests that the debate be semi-protected and then widely advertised internally (Wikiprojects etc.) to encourage good-quality contributions to the debate. 486:, keep in mind that small subcultures (such as specific metal subgenres) may have little coverage that looks relevant to an outsider looking in, but this doesn't necessarily mean they lack that coverage entirely -- it simply may require more familiarity to spot. The improvements to sourcing this article has seen since listing appear quite clearly reliable coverage. 643:. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. So for a record company, I want to see articles *about* the record company, not about the artists or new releases, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/ 377:: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." This company has not been the subject of significant coverage in any of those sources. This article should still be deleted. 1099:. A lot of the accounts posting to Keep don't appear to understand the criteria for establishing notability for companies or are quoting from other guidelines which have different standards and are not applicable for companies. Here's a summary to help. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is 748:. The debate on this Ripple article is a perfect example of how unclear guidelines for record labels results in confusion and clearer guidelines are needed. If we look at "length of operation and significance of roster, taken holistically," Ripple has a significant role in a music subculture. In the spirit of 560:
Updates to the information and references are ongoing. Re sources that are "not reliable" -- some references are from The Obelisk has its own (uncontested) Knowledge page. Other references include Rolling Stone, Blabbermouth, Ghost Cult Magazine, and long-running underground metal sites such as The
876:
Article describes actively engaged recorded music label, publisher, distributor, and cultural entity in music genre and subgenre operating for over 10 years representing broad roster of active musicians and significant catalog of recordings. Ripple Music is clearly a long standing active entity on
889:
indicates that many artists in repertoire would meet notable criteria, whether or not they themselves are represented with Knowledge articles or entries. There is limited discussion indicating how to assess Notability for smaller and independent record labels and music publishers as culturally
352:
While there were quality issues with the original article, Ripple Music is a notable record label in the doom metal subculture. The article has been revised to include reliable, independent references and some promotional language has been removed. View the current version:
593:
Trivial mentions in reliable sources are not sufficient to establish notability. A flag to improve citations doesn't apply to this article, since it hasn't been established that the company is notable in the first place. It appears that your argument boils down to the
394:: Updated references include well-known music publications such as Rolling Stone, Decibel Magazine, and Blabbermouth, as well as local mainstream news sources and popular underground publication The Obelisk. All of these are independent of the organization. 890:
significant. Knowledge Notability guidelines should not unintentionally bias toward "major" international corporate entities or certain "major" institutions. Discussion appears to contain Moving Goalposts when presented with notable references by invoking
795:
fallacy: "Notability is not established by how long a thing has existed, or how far back in time a tradition may go, or how venerable the people are who are involved in it, or how yellowed the pages that once mentioned it." 'Significance of roster' is the
830:-- "Knowledge has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Knowledge requires making exceptions." 902:
to refute notability. These can continue to be leveraged to argumentum ad infinitum as invoked here, they would also apply to most genre or regional music organizations that exist to promote culture and artists. The page needs fixing not deletion.
680:
should be factored in as well. Furthermore, as some users noted, Ripple's role in an underground subculture may be harder to see from outside that subculture; Also, references from Decibel and others focus on the label itself. As part of
229:
The only references listed in this article are links to the company's personal webpage/blogs/store and a link to a music festival's webpage. Cannot find references that sufficiently establish notability, therefore the article should be
537:
there have been significant updates to the page in recent days. It seems worth keeping as a few valuable new links have been added. And I can agree that yes, this is an important label in the underground rock community.
925:
rather than get hung up on circular arguments. Deleting the Ripple page does nothing to improve Wiki's music content, especially as the label's notability is being established through recent reference additions.
198: 998:
for your points and sharing the Discog and All Music links. Reliable secondary sources continue to be added which focus on the record label itself, including this 2020 label spotlight from Bandcamp.
966:
Note: That's also the case for the user who flagged this page for deletion. Law15of48's account was created in late December 2020 and most of the activity has been related to this page.
504:
The Decibel source might constitute significant coverage in a relible source, but all of the other sources listed are either not reliable or only contain trivial mentions of the company.
752:, to improve Knowledge's record label coverage -- rather than deleting one article about a record label that has existed for over ten years and has put out many releases that meet 1066:
Re notes about age of accounts that JPxG and I made -- whether you are on Team Keep or Team Delete, "newbie" status is not supposed to be a consideration in these discussions per
1067: 756:
notability criteria, perhaps efforts would be better spent on developing notability criteria that is specific to record labels. (Especially as this issue has come up before.)
159: 279: 259: 192: 702:: having a "role in an underground subculture may be harder to see from outside that subculture" does not make the company notable, nor does being a part of the 1142: 800:
fallacy: "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it." 'Ripple has a clear role in music subculture' is the
316:
for the reasons you've stated - looks like promo created by the people involved. Many of the edits were from accounts or IPs that only edited this article. -
296: 858: 106: 91: 944: 741: 1117:
original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject
641:
original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject
1213: 1103:
and applies a stricter interpretation of requirements than for other topics. In short, WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of
627:
and applies a stricter interpretation of requirements than for other topics. In short, WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of
1016: 805: 749: 703: 682: 967: 562: 132: 127: 430: 136: 86: 79: 17: 213: 119: 180: 908: 1162:
The article does not link to this AFD only to the deletion review. If the AFD is to continue someone should fix that.
338: 100: 96: 862: 1038: 662:
Good points. Upon closer examination, I agree. None of these sources constitute "significant coverage" whatsoever.
491: 444: 791:
does. Saying that the page shouldn't be deleted because it and/or the company have been around for a while is the
1238: 808:
are only for companies that have been demonstrated to be notable in the first place, which this company has not.
40: 1217: 505: 174: 995: 904: 1079: 1025: 1012: 979: 971: 931: 835: 761: 690: 584: 566: 399: 361: 922: 827: 813: 715: 667: 607: 521: 509: 479: 382: 334: 267: 247: 170: 1234: 1221: 1209: 1199: 1185: 1157: 1133: 1083: 1075: 1056: 1029: 1021: 1008: 983: 975: 960: 935: 927: 912: 866: 839: 831: 817: 777: 765: 757: 719: 694: 686: 671: 653: 611: 588: 580: 579:
This was me (Jessie) not signed in. Added strikethrough bc I'm not trying to stuff the ballot box lol.
570: 547: 543: 525: 495: 487: 468: 434: 403: 395: 386: 365: 357: 342: 325: 305: 288: 271: 251: 61: 36: 676:
I see the point about notability for an organization/company -- but in the case of a record label, the
999: 539: 1212:
voted 'keep' a total of 3 times - twice as themself, and once as logged out IP address 24.45.143.92.
1004: 891: 854: 797: 418: 422: 220: 1124: 1108: 1052: 899: 801: 699: 632: 595: 426: 321: 206: 1195: 710:
does not apply to record labels, and none of this supersedes the company's lack of notability.
809: 788: 745: 711: 663: 603: 517: 391: 378: 374: 263: 243: 235: 123: 75: 29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1233:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
415:
The label is still active and is important for the history of stoner rock/doom metal music.
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1163: 1120: 1112: 1104: 895: 878: 792: 636: 628: 599: 463: 57: 1100: 1096: 1092: 886: 753: 644: 624: 186: 1190:
Fixed it. No telling how long it had been that way, just noticed the incongruity myself.
1115:. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include 639:. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include 851:
This is ridiculous. This is the most relevant underground record label on the planet.
1148: 1048: 956: 685:, this article should remain as an important label in the doom/stoner metal subculture. 513: 483: 317: 300: 283: 1191: 1128: 784: 707: 677: 648: 239: 882: 354: 115: 67: 804:
fallacy. These fallacies do not sufficiently establish the company's notability.
153: 454: 53: 780:. Please strike through one of your votes so that it doesn't get counted twice. 950: 333:
per nom and Special-T. This has been sitting here since 2010, might I add.
1141:
This AfD was briefly closed as "keep" and made subject to a now moot DRV:
623:
The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is
921:
Amen! We need to improve Knowledge record label coverage according to
1000:
https://daily.bandcamp.com/label-profile/ripple-music-label-profile
943:
Note: Krakan.silfursolin's account was created recently and their
1229:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1041:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
447:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
881:. Ripple Music is clearly a long standing active entity on 149: 145: 141: 205: 478:
as subculturally notable music label. In addition to
1070:. Just pointing out that there are new accounts on 1068:
Knowledge:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
1047:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 453:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 43:). No further edits should be made to this page. 1241:). No further edits should be made to this page. 295:Note: This discussion has been included in the 278:Note: This discussion has been included in the 258:Note: This discussion has been included in the 280:list of California-related deletion discussions 260:list of Companies-related deletion discussions 1143:Knowledge:Deletion review/Log/2021 January 12 219: 8: 107:Help, my article got nominated for deletion! 852: 297:list of Music-related deletion discussions 294: 277: 257: 1111:and (this bit is important!) containing 742:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Record Labels 635:and (this bit is important!) containing 516:. The article should still be deleted. 1109:in-depth information *on the company* 633:in-depth information *on the company* 7: 947:relate to this deletion discussion. 806:Knowledge:WikiProject Record Labels 750:Knowledge:WikiProject Record Labels 704:Knowledge:WikiProject Record Labels 683:Knowledge:WikiProject Record Labels 24: 787:does not apply to record labels, 783:The guidelines are not unclear. 508:: Lack of notability supercedes 92:Introduction to deletion process 974:) 16:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC) 18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 1019:) 16:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC) 1: 326:14:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC) 306:21:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC) 289:21:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC) 272:15:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC) 252:15:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC) 1222:14:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC) 1200:06:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC) 1186:13:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC) 1158:09:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC) 1134:12:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC) 1091:The applicable guideline is 1084:18:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC) 1057:18:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC) 1030:16:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC) 984:16:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC) 961:14:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC) 936:22:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC) 913:09:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC) 867:23:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC) 840:16:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC) 818:17:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC) 766:17:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC) 720:17:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC) 695:16:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC) 672:03:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC) 654:21:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC) 589:16:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC) 62:11:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC) 612:16:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC) 571:01:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC) 548:20:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC) 526:04:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC) 496:04:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC) 469:23:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC) 435:23:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC) 404:13:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC) 387:22:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC) 366:21:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC) 343:20:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC) 82:(AfD)? Read these primers! 1258: 1074:sides of the discussion. 1231:Please do not modify it. 32:Please do not modify it. 923:Knowledge:Five Pillars 828:Knowledge:Five pillars 1113:"Independent Content" 859:2600:387:A:5:0:0:0:15 637:"Independent Content" 80:Articles for deletion 1105:significant coverage 629:significant coverage 738:strike double !vote 558:strike double !vote 1127:, post them here. 996:Krakan.silfursolin 905:Krakan.silfursolin 1156: 1059: 1007:comment added by 869: 857:comment added by 776:You voted twice, 739: 559: 506:WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS 471: 421:comment added by 335:GhostDestroyer100 308: 291: 274: 97:Guide to deletion 87:How to contribute 1249: 1182: 1179: 1176: 1173: 1170: 1167: 1155: 1153: 1146: 1046: 1044: 1042: 1020: 737: 557: 488:Vaticidalprophet 461: 452: 450: 448: 437: 303: 286: 224: 223: 209: 157: 139: 77: 34: 1257: 1256: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1239:deletion review 1214:192.145.116.125 1180: 1177: 1174: 1171: 1168: 1165: 1149: 1147: 1060: 1037: 1035: 1002: 510:WP:SURMOUNTABLE 480:WP:SURMOUNTABLE 472: 455: 443: 441: 416: 301: 284: 166: 130: 114: 111: 74: 71: 48:The result was 41:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 1255: 1253: 1244: 1243: 1225: 1224: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1160: 1136: 1086: 1045: 1034: 1033: 1032: 988: 987: 963: 940: 939: 938: 916: 915: 849: 848: 847: 846: 845: 844: 843: 842: 821: 820: 781: 769: 768: 740:In looking at 729: 728: 727: 726: 725: 724: 723: 722: 657: 656: 617: 616: 615: 614: 591: 574: 573: 550: 531: 530: 529: 528: 499: 498: 451: 440: 439: 438: 409: 408: 407: 406: 389: 369: 368: 346: 345: 328: 310: 309: 292: 275: 227: 226: 163: 110: 109: 104: 94: 89: 72: 70: 65: 46: 45: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1254: 1242: 1240: 1236: 1232: 1227: 1226: 1223: 1219: 1215: 1211: 1210:Jessiemay1984 1208: 1205: 1201: 1197: 1193: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1184: 1183: 1161: 1159: 1154: 1152: 1144: 1140: 1137: 1135: 1132: 1131: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1098: 1094: 1090: 1087: 1085: 1081: 1077: 1076:Jessiemay1984 1073: 1069: 1065: 1062: 1061: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1043: 1040: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1022:Jessiemay1984 1018: 1014: 1010: 1009:Jessiemay1984 1006: 1001: 997: 993: 990: 989: 986: 985: 981: 977: 976:Jessiemay1984 973: 969: 964: 962: 959: 958: 953: 952: 948: 946: 941: 937: 933: 929: 928:Jessiemay1984 924: 920: 919: 918: 917: 914: 910: 906: 901: 897: 893: 892:WP:INHERITORG 888: 884: 880: 875: 872: 871: 870: 868: 864: 860: 856: 841: 837: 833: 832:Jessiemay1984 829: 825: 824: 823: 822: 819: 815: 811: 807: 803: 799: 798:WP:INHERITORG 794: 790: 786: 782: 779: 778:Jessiemay1984 775: 774: 773: 772: 771: 770: 767: 763: 759: 758:Jessiemay1984 755: 751: 747: 743: 736: 735: 731: 730: 721: 717: 713: 709: 705: 701: 698: 697: 696: 692: 688: 687:Jessiemay1984 684: 679: 675: 674: 673: 669: 665: 661: 660: 659: 658: 655: 652: 651: 646: 642: 638: 634: 630: 626: 622: 619: 618: 613: 609: 605: 601: 597: 592: 590: 586: 582: 581:Jessiemay1984 578: 577: 576: 575: 572: 568: 564: 556: 555: 551: 549: 545: 541: 536: 533: 532: 527: 523: 519: 515: 511: 507: 503: 502: 501: 500: 497: 493: 489: 485: 481: 477: 474: 473: 470: 467: 466: 462: 460: 459: 449: 446: 436: 432: 428: 424: 420: 414: 411: 410: 405: 401: 397: 396:Jessiemay1984 393: 390: 388: 384: 380: 376: 373: 372: 371: 370: 367: 363: 359: 358:Jessiemay1984 356: 351: 348: 347: 344: 340: 336: 332: 329: 327: 323: 319: 315: 312: 311: 307: 304: 298: 293: 290: 287: 281: 276: 273: 269: 265: 261: 256: 255: 254: 253: 249: 245: 241: 237: 233: 222: 218: 215: 212: 208: 204: 200: 197: 194: 191: 188: 185: 182: 179: 176: 172: 169: 168:Find sources: 164: 161: 155: 151: 147: 143: 138: 134: 129: 125: 121: 117: 113: 112: 108: 105: 102: 98: 95: 93: 90: 88: 85: 84: 83: 81: 76: 69: 66: 64: 63: 59: 55: 51: 44: 42: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 1230: 1228: 1206: 1164: 1150: 1138: 1129: 1125:WP:CORPDEPTH 1116: 1088: 1071: 1063: 1036: 1003:— Preceding 991: 968:24.45.143.92 965: 955: 949: 942: 900:WP:LOCALFAME 873: 853:— Preceding 850: 810:Law15outof48 802:WP:LOCALFAME 733: 732: 712:Law15outof48 700:WP:LOCALFAME 664:Law15outof48 649: 640: 620: 604:Law15outof48 596:WP:LOCALFAME 563:24.45.143.92 553: 552: 534: 518:Law15outof48 475: 464: 457: 456: 442: 417:— Preceding 412: 379:Law15outof48 355:Ripple Music 349: 330: 313: 264:Law15outof48 244:Law15outof48 231: 228: 216: 210: 202: 195: 189: 183: 177: 167: 116:Ripple Music 73: 68:Ripple Music 50:no consensus 49: 47: 31: 28: 883:Discogs.com 602:fallacies. 540:Grimbold292 193:free images 1151:Sandstein 994:Thank you 945:only edits 789:WP:ORGCRIT 392:WP:ORGCRIT 375:WP:ORGCRIT 236:WP:ORGCRIT 1235:talk page 1121:WP:ORGIND 1049:Barkeep49 896:WP:ITSOLD 793:WP:ITSOLD 600:WP:ITSOLD 423:Bufftbone 318:Special-T 302:Spiderone 285:Spiderone 37:talk page 1237:or in a 1207:Comment: 1192:Jclemens 1139:Comment: 1130:HighKing 1101:WP:NCORP 1097:WP:MUSIC 1095:and not 1093:WP:NCORP 1039:Relisted 1017:contribs 1005:unsigned 898:, & 887:WP:MUSIC 879:AllMusic 855:unsigned 754:WP:MUSIC 746:Chubbles 650:HighKing 645:WP:NCORP 625:WP:NCORP 445:Relisted 431:contribs 419:unsigned 160:View log 101:glossary 39:or in a 1089:Comment 1064:Comment 992:Comment 514:WP:DINC 484:WP:DINC 232:deleted 199:WP refs 187:scholar 133:protect 128:history 78:New to 785:WP:MUS 708:WP:MUS 678:WP:MUS 621:Delete 458:BD2412 331:Delete 314:Delete 240:WP:GNG 171:Google 137:delete 54:Daniel 1181:Focus 1107:with 631:with 214:JSTOR 175:books 154:views 146:watch 142:links 16:< 1218:talk 1196:talk 1123:and 1080:talk 1072:both 1053:talk 1026:talk 1013:talk 980:talk 972:talk 932:talk 909:talk 874:Keep 863:talk 836:talk 826:See 814:talk 762:talk 734:Keep 716:talk 691:talk 668:talk 608:talk 598:and 585:talk 567:talk 554:Keep 544:talk 535:Keep 522:talk 512:and 492:talk 482:and 476:Keep 427:talk 413:Keep 400:talk 383:talk 362:talk 350:Keep 339:talk 322:talk 268:talk 248:talk 238:and 234:per 207:FENS 181:news 150:logs 124:talk 120:edit 58:talk 221:TWL 158:– ( 1220:) 1198:) 1145:. 1082:) 1055:) 1028:) 1015:• 982:) 951:jp 934:) 911:) 894:, 885:. 865:) 838:) 816:) 764:) 718:) 706:. 693:) 670:) 647:. 610:) 587:) 569:) 546:) 524:) 494:) 433:) 429:• 402:) 385:) 364:) 341:) 324:) 299:. 282:. 270:) 262:. 250:) 242:. 201:) 152:| 148:| 144:| 140:| 135:| 131:| 126:| 122:| 60:) 1216:( 1194:( 1178:m 1175:a 1172:e 1169:r 1166:D 1078:( 1051:( 1024:( 1011:( 978:( 970:( 957:g 954:× 930:( 907:( 861:( 834:( 812:( 760:( 714:( 689:( 666:( 606:( 583:( 565:( 542:( 520:( 490:( 465:T 425:( 398:( 381:( 360:( 337:( 320:( 266:( 246:( 225:) 217:· 211:· 203:· 196:· 190:· 184:· 178:· 173:( 165:( 162:) 156:) 118:( 103:) 99:( 56:(

Index

Knowledge:Articles for deletion
talk page
deletion review
Daniel
talk
11:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Ripple Music

Articles for deletion
How to contribute
Introduction to deletion process
Guide to deletion
glossary
Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
Ripple Music
edit
talk
history
protect
delete
links
watch
logs
views
View log
Google
books
news
scholar
free images

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.