Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric Human Project

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. - Mailer Diablo 06:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Electric Human Project

Article originally consisted of just the company name, and was tagged for speedy delete for being empty by Anthony.bradbury. Tag removed by author Mikehaley without comment, though discography was added. I've been trying to open dialog with the author in the talk page Talk:Electric Human Project for a couple of days now without success, trying to get article to meet WP:CORP. At this point I'm looking at an article about a company that gets only 373 distinct Ghits with no multiple non-trivial third-party stories, or major awards, or charted hits. Some of the albums appear to have gotten outside reviews, but I'm finding nothing about the company itself. Tychocat 12:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - As WP:CORP does not have specific guidelines for record labels, I would suggest that a label can only be as notable as the acts it has signed/worked with. The "multiple non-trivial published works" Wikipedia seeks would have to relate to their releases for those acts rather than just for the acts where the artist works or has worked with multiple labels. I have no opinion as to whether this label passes or otherwise. Ac@osr 20:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't expect it's a stretch that WP:CORP applies to a company that is a record label, as opposed to a company that produces software, runs a hotel, or any of the other companies it's been applied to. As far as the individual acts the label has produced, I did a preliminary check of individual notability there for each band and found nothing of remark. I submit it would unreasonable for an editor to apply WP:BAND and WP:MUSIC to each and every band in order to possibly find notability to justify the article on the record label, and suggest the onus is on the contributor to show why the label should have an article. Tychocat 12:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• I would say that if a label has worked successfully with a sufficient number of notable acts, they would become notable of themselves; it would demonstrate a degree of success within their field that would be of remark. An exact dividing line would be virtually impossible to draw however. The majority of major label acts flop.... Ac@osr 13:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oh, I'd agree with you, but it requires the writer to show the notable acts the label has produced. In this case, Mikehaley has continued to edit the article, refuses to communicate any questions to me, and yet continues to fail to show notability of either the label or the associated bands per this, or any, discussion. The article is also vanity per the disclosure at this site. Tychocat 11:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - i'm not really sure how to use the "talk" thing, so i am posting this here. sorry for deleting the "quick delete notice", i'm kind of new at all this... i've been adding more information to the page, not sure exactly what i need to keep it up. i guess the label is not really all that notible, but it is associated with bands/labels that are also on wikipedia so i thought it might be helpful to have this page up. i guess if its not meeting standards then it should be taken down...

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 00:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — I really see no notability here American Patriot 1776 02:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The article cites no reliable sources. WilyD 13:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep "Underground" labels can't be discounted simply because they don't have mainstream/radio success (such a precedent would wipe out many very influential aspects of an important subculture through the past few decades). This label seems to have notability in the underground music world, due to the number of releases and cross references with bands that are listed in wikipedia. Suggest having the article conform with all Wikipedia standards but keep it in terms of content. robotcaptain 14:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • We can't even confirm this band exists - WP:MUSIC may be negiotiable, but WP:V is not. WilyD 14:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • This is not a band, it is a record label. As far as confirming that the bands on the label exist, do a little bit of research and you will find that they all do. for example: la quiete (http://www.laquiete.org/), hot cross (http://www.level-plane.com/hotcross), isis (http://www.sgnl05.com/), daughters (http://www.wearedaughters.com/). and, all bands i have just mentioned (along with many others on the label) have multiple US, Japanese, and European tours under their belt, multiple full length albums, and widespread popularity in the independent and underground music community. Again, this information is all quite relevant to a large and important topic: underground music. robotcaptain 18:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
      • None of those are reliable third party sources. From this, I really can't conclude that these bands even exist - after all, my bands' website you might have concluded we knew how to play instraments, we actually had albums, our fiddler was in the baseball hall of fame, et cetera. WilyD 19:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Here are album reviews of Isis and Hot Cross records from PitchforkMedia, a well known and established music review/news magazine: http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/18756/Isis_Oceanic , http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/h/hot-cross/cryonics.shtml. These are two of the most well known artists that are associated with this label and have since worked with larger labels such as HydraHead Records and Equal Vision Records. robotcaptain 19:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable company as it fails WP:CORP with no significant third-party coverage. Fairsing 04:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

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.