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 no consensus. Randykitty ( talk) 17:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Afternoon Records

Afternoon Records (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a company/organization and the appropriate SNG is WP:NCORP. The key requirement is sources to establish notability and I am unable to locate a single source that meets the requirements. One reference from "The Minnesota Daily" is based entirely on an interview with the "founder", is an advertorial, and fails WP:ORGIND. Notability is not inherited, for this topic to be notable there must be sources that deal directly with this topic. The previous AfD mentions WP:NMUSIC but this is not applicable for record labels. (Note: the last AfD was withdrawn by the previous nominator) HighKing ⁺⁺ 12:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HighKing ⁺⁺ 12:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing ⁺⁺ 12:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. HighKing ⁺⁺ 12:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Pinging previous participants Mottezen, Spiderone, Chubbles, 78.26 HighKing ⁺⁺ 12:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment - this fails NCORP and GNG notability guidelines. I was wondering if, as an alternative to deletion, whether there is any scope for converting the article into something like List of Afternoon Records artists? I believe that it may satisfy WP:LISTPURP as a navigational list because of the high number of blue links. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • In my opinion, creating a list article from the material here would be a new article but wouldn't preserve this article and wouldn't preserve the history of this article. Creating a list article isn't an alternative to deletion on the merits of the current topic. HighKing ⁺⁺ 14:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete does not meet any of our most minimal guidelines for article inclusion. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete as the previous nominator who withdrew the nomination. I had been swayed by some keep votes to keep and try to expand this article instead. However, all the sources mostly heap praise on the founder instead of talking about the actual company. I realized I couldn't expand this article without making it promotional, so I was going to re-nominate it eventually. Thank you for pre-empting me. Mottezen ( talk) 16:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep as before. CORP neither is nor should be the default SNG for record labels, and as I have noted many times, WP:MUSIC (which is a much more commonsensical place to look for guidance on the importance of music-related topics) has language suggesting how to judge the importance of labels. The label's roster included output from a number of noteworthy artists ( Haley Bonar, We Shot the Moon, Bad Bad Hats, Now Now, John Vanderslice, and others); the very idea that we might want to try and convert this into a list article (which, for all intents and purposes, many label articles more or less are, and sensibly so) indicates that there is encyclopedic interest in noting the tie that binds these artists together. Without this article, we lose the ability to tell that encyclopedic story and the collective impact that the label, by releasing music from these musicians, had on art and culture. NOTINHERITED is a red herring here; this was ably addressed by 78.26 in the 2nd deletion (mind you, this article has been nominated for deletion three times in ten days). We have at least three minimally viable sources; the MPR piece is substantial, the Minnesota Daily I addressed in AfD2, and the Billboard piece is an invited interview conducted by a Billboard editor. It's justifiably considered one of the more important indie labels in the sense used at WP:MUSIC. Chubbles ( talk) 19:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: the MPR piece is about the founder and his multiple projects so fails WP:CORPDEPTH, and the Billboard piece fails WP:INDY as it was written by the founder. Mottezen ( talk) 20:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment I have some sympathy for your opinion and I also think that CORP sucks for a range of companies which have an artistic element to their output/service/etc. But until and unless the guidelines change, we're stuck with it. But I reject your assertion that NOTINHERITED is a red herring or that it was "dealt with". It hasn't been dealt with at all and even your opinion above attempts to demonstrate notability by pointing to this company's links to .. "noteworthy artists". Finally, if NCORP is the applicable SNG (and it is, your opinion and my sympathy aside) then no, you don't have "three minimally viable sources" either, they fail ORGIND and/or CORPDEPTH. HighKing ⁺⁺ 11:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep on the strength of the MPR article (>1400 words) which is about the founder and his projects, which are interrelated and related to his label. Kablammo ( talk) 15:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • It's not "about" the founder, it's based entirely on an interview "with" the founder and since there is no "Independent Content" as per ORGIND, it fails ORGIND. HighKing ⁺⁺ 11:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC) reply
    • The MPR article is not based entirely on an interview with the founder. Minnesota Public Radio is a highly-regarded news source and is reliable, and the author of the piece is a journalist with over three decades of experience. Kablammo ( talk) 13:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. This means it is our job to apply policies and guidelines in a way that best serves Wikipedia's purpose. Fortunately Wikipedia is also not anarchy, where precident and policy have no meaning. We have WP:IAR as a pillar, which in this case allows us to decide whether this topic furthers the quality of Wikipedia, or inhibits it. Therefore, we should consider how these policies apply to the topic at hand, through WP:Consensus. In other words, we need to ensure that the policies serve Wikipedia, and that Wikipedia does not serve policies. So if "CORP sucks" in this case, and inhibits building an encyclopedia, then that policy shouldn't be applied in this instance. If CORP helps remove unencyclopedic, promotional content in this instance, then it has done its job well.

Therefore, how does this topic fit within Wikipedia's goal, and how do the policies support? WP:GNG designed to support Wikipedia in several ways, among them avoiding plagarism (copying from a single voice, no matter if in-depth and reliable), giving a neutral point of view (even reliable sources can have strong points of view) by combining different viewpoints. GNG's question can be summed up as "Can we build a neutrally worded article about the topic, with enough information to be more than a sub-stub (dictionary definition)?" As we have become the go-to site for information, many with goals divergent from Wikipedia's attempt (and unfortunately succeed too often) in using Wikipedia for their own purposes, often for financial gain. Therefore we constantly are bombarded with edits which purport to be encyclopedic, but whose goals are promotional in nature. NCORP was developed as a more strict guideline to further strain out truly encyclopedic topics from the flow of business "news". If so, do we apply NCORP, because as an ongoing commercial concern the content of the article promotes the offerings of the topic?

GNG is an all-purpose notability guideline, and is particularly useful because the community may not have expertise in a given area. This is where SNG are helpful, because they are usually more specific regarding how a subject may be notable within its area. Despite several attempts, mostly because of lack of participation, the community has failed to articulate a SNG for record labels, which are tricky because they are both a corporation and produce art. The closest thing we have is the fifth point of WP:NMUSIC. If a record label has produced art by several notable artists ("several" being undefined), then it stands to reason that the label has had an impact upon art and culture, within a genre or a region. It therefore stands to reason that said label is worthy of encyclopedic attention. Where the line is drawn regarding notable artists and degree of influence has varied from dicussion to discussion We also need to be wary of WP:Walled gardens regarding notable artists. In these cases I do give attention to editors such as Chubbles, who have demonstrated an expertise of musical topics over a long period of time.

My opinion on this particular topic is that it improves the encyclopedia, if only slightly. Mostly the article is neutrally worded, and it gives information of use to those who are musicologists or collectors of music. The fact that Minnesota Public Radio has singled it out for attention is important. Not all "interviews" are equal, and MPR has a much better reputation for fact-checking than your average blog. There is certainly about the label itself there. Billboard isn't the source it once was, but still not every yahoo who starts a label is featured in its pages. Calling all the articles "local interest" ignores that Minneapolis/St. Paul is one of the major metropolitan areas, and there has been persistent coverage of the label there. Put together with the number of notable bands that this label has been responsible for (and perhaps vice-versa), I believe the foregoing shows a degree of artistic presence that merits encyclopedic attention. Regarding promotion, perhaps the discography should be removed (and I say that as someone who spends a lot of time at discography), because as an ongoing commercial concern, it might appear that we are promoting its catalog. That discussion can take place at the talk page, however. 78.26 _{( spin me / revolutions)} 23:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment A few more things that cover Afternoon to various degrees of depth: NBC Chicago, Twin Cities Daily Planet, Star-Tribune, Riverfront Times. Chubbles ( talk) 13:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Chubbles and (especially) 78.26, whose defense of this article says everything I could've wanted. Vaticidal prophet 23:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep I added some of the sources discussed here. MPR news is in-depth and so are a few others. There is Billboard coverage. The label is part of Warner Music Group. Expertwikiguy ( talk) 02:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Just a point of order re: Warner, the article tried to inherit notability, but in fact the sources didn't even mention Warner. It's a distribution deal, which means the label likely has wider availabililty than just Minnesota, but it's not corporately part of the Warner conglomerate. I've fixed the wording regarding Warner because it was wrong, and unsourced. 78.26 _{( spin me / revolutions)} 13:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment There's a lot of !votes for Keeping above but the logic behind the "Keep" boils down to IAR and/or that NCORP isn't the most appropriate SNG for music-company-related topics. There's a few who are arguing that the MBR article is "in-depth" but it undeniably fails ORGIND as it relies entirely on an interview and information provided by that individual and/or the company. There's an understandable reluctance to "close" this AfD, it has been open for a month now. Can I suggest that a discussion takes place either at the Talk page of NCORP (preferable) or at the Talk page of NMUSIC to discuss the arguments why NCORP is not a suitable SNG for "artistic" companies? I believe there is a growing consensus that "artistic" companies needs some better guidelines and that deleting articles like this one may not serve the project as intended. HighKing ⁺⁺ 12:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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.