The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
not yet notable , and primarily a catalog entry DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
We should Keep — reviewed references for notability and entry is clearly notable with coverage on television, in magazines and blogs, with 25 references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMWare (talk • contribs) 03:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment The sources for this entry include:
Please review these for determining source reliability and/or significance — they really are high-integrity sources. In addition, please consider the following:
"An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability."
In light of this additional clarity, info, and the major edits based on this discussion, I would like to invite reconsideration of the AfD nomination itself. For anyone that is not familiar with the music industry, some of these sources could seem small, but I think if you further review the links above, you'll see that these represent connection, interviews, coverage, and events with some of the largest entities in music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMWare (talk • contribs) 20:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Comment
Additionally, I have prepared the WP:COMPANY recommended table analysis for all references. .
Source | Significant? | Independent? | Reliable? | Secondary? | Pass/Fail | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Avid Technology | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Guest post |
2. SC Blog | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Company's blog post |
3. ISNI | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Blog posts are often sponsored and self-published sources are generally not reliable |
4. DDEX | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Appears more as a primary source |
5. Music 3.0 | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Draws from other primary sources |
6. Pro Tools Expert | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Well established, strong on significance |
7. Memphis Flyer | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Print magazine coverage |
8. Mix (magazine) (Print and Online) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Clearly secondary |
9. Pitchfork | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Coverage is brief |
10. Memphis Business | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Contains some interview quotes but also author's own interpretation and synthesis |
11. TapeOp | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Notability according to Wikipedia:Interviews but not WP:COMPANY |
12. MusicWeek (print and online) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Music Week has been around since 1959 as an established secondary source |
13. PPL | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
This seems more like a primary source than secondary |
14. Musically | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Short, but the full focus is on the subject, meets significance requirements. |
15. Digital Music News | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Long established and appears on Wikipedia |
16. Warner Music Group | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Appears more as a primary source |
17. Memphis Flyer | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Print magazine coverage |
18. Revolution LLC | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Appears more as a primary source |
19. WMC-TV | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Television coverage with associated post |
20. StartCo | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Brief coverage, appears more as a primary source |
21. 60 Minutes | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Founder appeared in famous 60 Minutes placard in episode intro |
22. TEC Awards | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
TEC Awards press release of official nominees |
23. Sonicscoop | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Brief, used to support a specific point |
24. Recording Academy | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Appears more as a primary source, supporting a specific point |
25. Recording Academy 2 | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Appears more as a primary source, supporting a specific point |
Total qualifying sources | 11 | There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements
|
Keep — plenty of references with significant coverage from reliable independent sources including Music Week, Phonographic Performance Limited, and Warner Music clearly show general and subject notability. Interviews seem fine by Wikipedia:Interviews recommendations. Rise of the Rest award and TEC nomination at least supplement the other sources for displaying notability, the latter saying at the source "final nominees are those products and projects that, in the opinion of the nominating panel, represent superior accomplishment in their respective fields". The article concisely represents the references in a style befitting the subject matter. -Nooneofnote (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Keep. Chiming in here after seeing this in one of the alerts I set up for things I follow. I was the original author of the Memphis Flyer references and I can personally attest to their significance, reliability and independence. They were not paid articles and the Memphis Flyer is long established with a reputation for independence and journalistic integrity. I investigated these two stories, which alone put it over the general inclusion threshold, they are secondary sources, and this company is more than notable — these folks made history, which is why I chose to cover them. The thoroughness of this process is appreciated, however in the end, this one is a "keep". Nebraskahistory (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebraskahistory (talk • contribs) 22:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)