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 keep. Missvain (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sound Credit[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

not yet notable , and primarily a catalog entry DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment' There are not 25 reliable sources. I don't think there's a single one
Ref 1 2, 3, 12 ,13, 14, 15, 16 was written by the president of the company, the firm , or industry partners or based upon press releases from them.
Ref 4. is a mention in lists of various tools for the same purpose, withthe blurb for each written by the company
Ref 5 does not work, 21 I cannot see
Ref 6 is a very brief review in a trade publciation
Ref 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 17 , 19 are interviews where the founder or designer says whatever he wants to.
Ref 9 , 14 , 18, 26 are general articles which mention the company or inclusion in a a listing of companies funded by a start-up investment fund. or inclusion in a list
Ref 25 is an advertisement inserted in an article, DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' the article has No significant coverege on independent relieble sources , Samat lib (talk) 08:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' No Evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 08:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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:

The TapeOp article was a cover feature, meaning that Sound Credit was on the front cover of a magazine at physical bookstores last year. I also note that the interview appears to have been conducted by the magazine's founder himself, rather than a staff writer.

For the 7 references that contain interviews or quotes from the company, this would seem to contribute to notability rather than take away from it. Wikipedia:Interviews says:

"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."

Wikipedia:Interviews

The prior comment references 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 17 and 19 as interviews, however only 11 is an interview. The others are full, lengthy editorials with some that contain quotes from an interview portion of the editorial. Please read the Memphis Flyer editorials for 7 and 17. Also, see the editorial for #10 which was on the cover of the print version of that magazine.

I truly think DGG is an amazing Wikipedia editor, however I think he simply missed the "Read More" button below the tutorial video when he commented that #25, the GRAMMY.com article, was just an ad. Super-easy to miss those Read More buttons, especially when you're doing as much great work on Wikipedia as DGG. The impact there was that there was a GRAMMY event that featured Sound Credit that was discussed in the article. In fact there were two such events referenced in this entry. This isn't typical stuff, and demonstrates high notability, especially for music software.

For the comment about 9, 14 and 18 (26 was listed but there is no 26), these actually do have some pretty big significance — 18 for instance is showing that Jeff Bezos is one of the funders of the Revolution Fund that is backing the company in this entry. While it is a list of those investments, the list is a very notable list of companies.

Front-covers on book store magazine shelves, two GRAMMY events, backing from the richest person in the world — the entry far exceeds the majority of Wikipedia entries for music software for notability, countless deserving entries would need to be deleted if this doesn't meet the bar.

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)[reply]

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	Y	N	N	Y	N	Guest post
2. SC Blog	Y	N	N	N	N	Company's blog post
3. ISNI	Y	N	N	N	N	Blog posts are often sponsored and self-published sources are generally not reliable
4. DDEX	N	Y	Y	N	N	Appears more as a primary source
5. Music 3.0	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Draws from other primary sources
6. Pro Tools Expert	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Well established, strong on significance
7. Memphis Flyer	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Print magazine coverage
8. Mix (magazine) (Print and Online)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Clearly secondary
9. Pitchfork	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Coverage is brief
10. Memphis Business	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Contains some interview quotes but also author's own interpretation and synthesis
11. TapeOp	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Notability according to Wikipedia:Interviews but not WP:COMPANY
12. MusicWeek (print and online)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Music Week has been around since 1959 as an established secondary source
13. PPL	Y	Y	Y	N	N	This seems more like a primary source than secondary
14. Musically	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Short, but the full focus is on the subject, meets significance requirements.
15. Digital Music News	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Long established and appears on Wikipedia
16. Warner Music Group	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Appears more as a primary source
17. Memphis Flyer	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Print magazine coverage
18. Revolution LLC	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Appears more as a primary source
19. WMC-TV	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Television coverage with associated post
20. StartCo	N	Y	Y	N	N	Brief coverage, appears more as a primary source
21. 60 Minutes	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Founder appeared in famous 60 Minutes placard in episode intro
22. TEC Awards	N	Y	Y	N	N	TEC Awards press release of official nominees
23. Sonicscoop	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Brief, used to support a specific point
24. Recording Academy	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Appears more as a primary source, supporting a specific point
25. Recording Academy 2	Y	Y	Y	N	N	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)[reply]

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)[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.