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. Per the arguments involving the presence of third-party sources provided later. This discussion was a bit confusing because early on we had a lot of "keep, it exists and is important" with little evidence cited thereof and sources that are connected to the subject (which per WP:GNG do not establish notability), but the later arguments are well supported. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Records[edit]

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

Eric Records (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)

I can't find any significant third party coverage of this label. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The original base of this page came from the converted German Wiki page (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Records), as there was no English equivalent. I've included multiple reference websites for them at the bottom of the page, and I've made all the citations I can think of. I am only a novice Wikipedia editor so I am asking for assistance with fixing things that need to get corrected. GodzFire (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC) GodzFire (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So you and I have both looked for significant third-party coverage and there simply isn't any. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've included multiple reference websites to confirm this place does exist and is what this page states it to be:
GodzFire (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GodzFire: Existence doesn't mean notable. None of those pages you've linked to indicate significant independent coverage of the topic. I have looked as much as you, and I just haven't found that those sources exist. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[1]
[2]
Chiu.0606 (talk) 06:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ward Cunningham, inventor of the wiki, described the essence of the Wiki concept as the following:
1- A wiki invites all users—not just experts—to edit any page or to create new pages within the wiki Web site, using only a standard "plain-vanilla" Web browser without any extra add-ons.
2- Wiki promotes meaningful topic associations between different pages by making page link creation intuitively easy and showing whether an intended target page exists or not.
3- A wiki is not a carefully crafted site created by experts and professional writers, and designed for casual visitors. Instead, it seeks to involve the typical visitor/user in an ongoing process of creation and collaboration that constantly changes the website landscape.
If this page is removed, it would be violating 2 of those basic principles. Eric Records does exist, and there are hundreds and hundreds of people who have items it's created. Just because they might not post on Wikipedia (or know HOW to for that matter), doesn't negate the fact that they could attest to it if you asked them.
GodzFire (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Billboard citation from 1981
Billboard ERIC advertisement 1968
Cited in the footnotes of a Google book Frank Zappa and the And Google Book "Frank Zappa and the And" footnotes
It's the same company that has been in continuous operation for 51 years.
Eric Records has been an early utilizer of techniques (Spectral Editing/De-Mix) extracting elements from monophonic recordings to create or enhance stereo recording. Discussion here:
De-mix/DES and recently utilized by Abbey Road Studios in the UK for recent releases here: Abbey Road De-mix These aren't conceptual ideas but real, consumer products that need documentation. The EMI page will inform you about the process and technique, which after many years of hard work is finally producing marketable results.
PaulBigelow (talk) 03:01, 01 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Possible meatpuppetry. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are allowed to discuss the notability all you want, and bringing independent, reliable sources which demonstrate notability is to be encouraged, but you are not allowed to !vote more than once. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So in addition to all the links I posted above, we have:
Wikipedia says "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity". Eric Records's peak and prime decades were the late 60s, 70s, and 80s. If Wikipedia was a thing back in that time, there would be no issue confirming it's significance with all sorts of newspaper and magazine publications available to be used as references. The problem is, just like so much other published content from that time, the vast majority hasn't been digitized and not online to utilize. This doesn't mean it's not an important part of history, and should be remembered. Please, see that we are trying here. GodzFire (talk) 00:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GodzFire (talk) 01:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GodzFire (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's even more mentions of Bill Buster and Eric Records:
GodzFire (talk) 01:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the Eric Records product is sold by reputed bookselling company Barnes & Noble. Search for :Hard To Find 45s On" (https://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/Hard+to+Find+45s+on?_requestid=1994760) or "Hard To Find Jukebox Classics" (https://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/hard+to+find+jukebox+classics?_requestid=1995161)
GodzFire (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing vote to Neutral with apologies. I cannot participate any more in this AfD after mistaking the name of the label. The extreme notability of what I thought this was about made me rush to a suggestion. Take care, all. -The Gnome (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Gnome: Eric, not EPIC. And FYI, I did. And I did as a HUGE fan of the label, owning many of the compilations and having met Bill Buster. I actually wanted to create the article years ago but the only sources I found were the same ones GodzFire did. As you can see, it took some deeper dedicated research by a few others to find more reliable sources, so I commend them. Now, if kept, I can clean the mess up.
Above comment added by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. -The Gnome (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that it's shown there's clearly a not a consensus for deletion, and there's been plenty of significant third party coverage of this label found, can we please remove the deletion prompt on the page and the deletion discussion links?
GodzFire (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since it took me such a long time to create, and the information could be helpful to others, I created a post on the oldies board sharing it (https://bsnpubs.websitetoolbox.com/post/eric-records-complete-listing-10110999 if you have an account). The feedback was very positive with someone then stating there was no Eric Records page on Wikipedia, and it definitely deserved to have one started. Another member pointed out there was already a pre-created one on the German version of Wikipedia (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Records). Since I had worked on a Wikipedia page in the past and somewhat familiar with the process, I went ahead and converted the German page to English, cleaned some things up, and added the listings I created to it. I never assumed there was going to be an issue since the German page already existed and that it was a simply an oversight that the English page was missing. What started as a simple helping hand to create the page (since {respectfully} the majority of users there weren't knowledgeable how to do it on Wikipedia themselves or even have an account) then turned into the craziness that we're at now.
I do not have multiple accounts; the other users are truly separate, unique people; I believe most from the same board, who came over to help when I requested assistance with locating and producing references that would satisfy the claims of the topic not having enough third party significance or notoriety (or whatever it's called). I'll be honest, this whole thing wasn't anything I planned or signed up for. I have no idea about any of these processes and guidelines and such. I'm really just a novice user. I only wanted just share the information so it would be available to others, and frustrated when it seemed like a few select people were deciding what they felt was "important enough" to be information that's allowed on here. I really just kind of want to wash my hands and be done with it all now, as this whole experience has really disillusioned me on wanting to/trying to contribute on here.
GodzFire (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Godzfire: - picking up our guideline to edit can take a bit of time (if you don't mind some cliches, take a look at our interactive tutorial. Deletion is so complicated usually it's picked up a bit of a time, rather than having to handle it at the start all at once. One good initial point - we don't judge importance, we judge a thing called notability (which, in rough terms, means how much reliable coverage it has in secondary sources). Nosebagbear (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.thesuburban.com/arts_and_entertainment/joel-goldenberg-the-sound-breakthrough-has-finally-happened/article_7bbca08e-7052-5b59-9eb6-9cb57f7e643a.html
  2. ^ https://www.huffpost.com/entry/two-new-cds-reignite-stereo-vs-mono-debate_b_58ac61cde4b0417c4066c2ee
  3. ^ http://www.qrzcq.com/mirrors/www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-Record-World/70s/75/RW-1975-02-22.pdf
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.
More