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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indie Vision Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

insufficient sources to establish notability; article has been tagged for notability for two years. A few mentions for reviews but only article I found about the site was this one asking for donations. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - all references on page are self referential. No notable mentions on Google or Google News. Does not meet notability standard. CerealKillerYum (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are plenty of excerpts taken from reviews given in other reliable sources, but that just merely indicates that Indie Vision Music is reliable. I can find no sources that discuss the site/record label itself, thus indicating that it is not notable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Article seems to be in poor shape, but as someone who is tied to this branch of the music industry, I will note that IVM is most certainly notable within the field. It is one of the major players when it comes to Christian Music news/reviews. Frankly, I'm surprised that this is even being discussed, lest for the random "Deletion Nazis" floating around. —Maktesh ^(talk) 21:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Declaring something to notable is not sufficient; article must meet the requirements of WP:GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Maktesh, I agree that it is one of the major players in Christian music journalism. However, that just means that it is reliable to support statements about artists and musical works. That does not inherently mean that the publication itself deserves an article. Please demonstrate with reliable sources why this publication deserves an article, not just why it is trustworthy as a news and review source.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a dog in this fight, so I'm not about to go spending hours researching "viable sources for proof of notability." Anyway, I would simply point to the amount of pages that have cited it with news, reviews and album scores, etc. It's not a major player in the big picture, but in terms of its field, it's one of the major websites that has shaped the coverage of the Christian music industry's non-major label acts. Why don't we take a look at how redlinks would pop up if we were to remove it, eh? To be blunt, I'm stating what I know to be fact, hoping that someone with more of an interest will show up who is wiling to start sourcing. I write this stuff for my job, so I'm not about to engage in hours of debate. A better questions to ask is "why should this page not exist?" Enough people and wiki pages seem to think it's worthy of notability, so why go to the effort of killing it? —Maktesh ^(talk) 05:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because none of those news reports and the like contain enough information actually write an article from. I myself tend to be very lenient toward meeting notability standards. I actually was surprised that there isn't anything significant written about this publication, considering that it was so important within the scene. But if there's nothing written about it, it's not notable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: If "excerpts" from a publications reviews are taken by other "reliable sources", then they go about meeting the General notablitity guidelines that you espoused above. So, they have received "significant coverage" and "sufficient coverage" to make them notable for inclusion as part of this encyclopedia as an article, not just for review taking purposes.The Cross Bearer (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a creative way of declaring them notable, but no, excerpts or mentions do not meet GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed at seeing two "Strong" keep votes in the absence of ANY demonstrations of significant coverage of this publication, apart from a single HM post soliciting for donations to the site. The Cross Bearer, you are grossly misinterpreting the guidelines. Excerpts taken from a review are not significant coverage dealing with the publication ITSELF, they are merely quotes in another publication discussing what IVM said about an artist or work. That can be a marker of reliability, but not notability.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commment: The creator of the article was HotHat, who later on revealed themselves to be a sock-puppet engaging in paid editing. While much, even most, of the content they created was within policy (I was very surprised when the editor outed themselves), there is the possibility that this article was created as paid advocacy. This shouldn't inherently mean that it should be deleted, but it does provide some explanation as to why it was created.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @ 3family6: You can say the exact same things about Jesus Freak Hideout deletion and New Release Tuesday deletion, but I digress because other stuff exist arguments are generally frowned upon. They are all three in the same boat, and should be kept or deleted.The Cross Bearer (talk) 03:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, Jesus Freak Hideout has been discussed in reliable sources. New Release Tuesday I think also has. I was considering creating an article for New Release Tuesday, though I think might just barely squeak by the notability standards. The deletion discussion for NRT resulted in a soft delete, actually, because nobody participated. But, absolutely your argument is OTHERSTUFF exists. Please demonstrate why this article is worthy of inclusion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just Delete, because the website is going the way of the dodo bird anyways, and closing up shop. I just don't think or see it fitting and useful for my time to go down this fox hole and sinkhole of a Wikipedia morass of an engagement. I'd rather get more stuff done that matters extremely more to me as a holistic believer, creature, and human being made fearfully in the image of God in Jesus Christ, My Lord.The Cross Bearer (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, one of the claims to keep Jesus Freak Hideout was that it had coverage by Indie Vision Music. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimandia - so? Reliability isn't the same thing as notability, as I've elaborated above.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3family6 Notability is achieved through coverage in reliable sources. If Indie Vision Music is not considered to not have any notability, it's not considered a reliable source for the purpose of establishing notability. It could however be used as a reference in an article that already has notability established. That's the way that works. You're welcome for that free information. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia: That's not at all how it works. There are hundreds, probably thousands, of books out there that are perfectly reliable for use in articles but are not notable. Please show me where in the reliable source guidelines and/or the notability guidelines that in order for an article to exist, the reliable sources must also be notable/have articles.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have fun! Why don't you take a whack at those articles, Jesus Freak Hideout and New Release Tuesday, and see what others' say about their merits?The Cross Bearer (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! I have asked my personal savior Xenu if this will please him, and am awaiting his response. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is notable, and Wikipedia is a collaborative project; I'm sure another editor will have time to add the sources. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as no solid significant and notable coverage has been found, with the above search links finding nothing and a detailed "Indie Vision Music IVM California company" found nothing aside from some websites (interviews, etc.) and thefreelibrary and highbeam found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you're not going to find anything searching under those terms. An organization such as this would never be referred to as a "company." Additionally, music news coverage would have no reason to even use it's local state (California) as a keyword. I feel as though many of the people "voting" here are less than qualified by their understanding of this general niche/branch/corner of the industry. —Maktesh ^(talk) 04:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but I've often seen they'll show if they're referred to as that ("a webzine from California...", etc.). I would also think twice before thinking some users aren't qualified to understand. You may be connected to this industry but where are the significant and notable sources talking about IVM? SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No significant coverage has been found to exist about this organization by myself or others. If the keep !voters could provide examples of significant independent coverage passing WP:GNG, I am willing to change my !vote, but calling people "Deletion Nazis" does not make the subject pass WP:GNG. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with storm and fire: Christ on a crutch, I'm sick and tired of these lame "It's really notable in the field because ... because ... because, well, I say so!" arguments. Prove it. If you're unable to do so through reliable sources, then stop wasting our time. If you're unwilling to do so through reliable sources, I'm disinterested in your POV. If the outside world hasn't noticed a subject enough to give it significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, then it just doesn't meet Wikipedia guidelines. Period. I don't have to know JACK about a subject to be able to see if it meets the GNG or not, and I'm just a little bit fed up with that malarkey as well.

  And this one doesn't. It's Yet Another Blogsite that comes under the radar, and I doubt that any of the Keep proponents can prove otherwise ... or they already would've. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See, isn't this rich? Here we are, having a civil discussion on the merits of the topic, and suddenly you come in. You admit to knowing nothing of the context, are rude and using profanity. You are the kind of editor who contributes to hostility. The bottom line is that the article exists. You are of the party going out of your way to make an effort. Again, the proof of notability is found within the connected articles which continually cite and link. If you so desire to create 500 redlinks in your cantankerous quest, go for it. Or maybe you could actually be productive and learn how to Google it yourself, Sherlock. I simply cast a vote as one who knows the difference between crap and ice cream. —Maktesh ^(talk) 20:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maktesh, you yourself said "I don't have a dog in this fight, so I'm not about to go spending hours researching 'viable sources for proof of notability.'" And you complain that another editor hasn't taken the time to research the notability of the subject? I agree with NukeThePukes: if the site is notable, prove it. It doesn't have to be an online source. If CCM Magazine or HM or some other publication did a print write-up on the site, that counts too (print sources tend to be given more respect anyway, so that would definitely satisfy notability concerns). I have nothing against this site in particular, and I agree that it is highly cited as a source, both on Wikipedia and by reliable publications, but there doesn't seem to be any discussion of the site itself in any reliable sources. Escalating things after another editor was abrasive in their comments does not help things at all, either.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a curious notion as to what constitutes "profanity" -- mind telling me what words in that last post you think qualify? Anyway, I did Google the sucker, and lo and behold, I couldn't come up with a single reliable source. As far as being rude or hostile goes, dude, it takes some stones to toss ANY rocks after the "Deletion Nazis" crack. I'll quote from one of those policies for you: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." If you're unwilling to provide any sources and you don't understand the relevant notability guidelines ... who's posting here in ignorance, exactly? Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:04, 1 June 2015 (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.