Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N4 (record producers)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Despite the very long discussion, no one but the article creator advocated keeping it, with the consensus being that the subject is not notable. SoWhy 08:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

N4 (record producers)

edit
N4 (record producers) (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)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Of the 9 sources only one of them is about N4 and contradicts the article. It starts of by saying "You've never heard of him, but Freek van Workum making beats for TI, 2Chainz and Kid Ink" and says that N4 is an alias for him...no mention of the other producers. The article says we have never heard of him...and the dearth of sources supports this statement. All the other sources are simple credits. As far as I am aware producers are not concerned by WP:NMUSIC so must fulfill WP:NORG which as presented this company does not meet. Domdeparis (talk) 08:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Extended discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment Please read all of the references thoroughly. N4 is clearly shown to consist of more than one producer and has been credited for major releases that are deemed notable. These works have charted on Billboard, been certified gold and platinum, and had significant exposure on multiple occasions.
The fact that people had at one point never heard of a producer, yet Vice has published an article outlining his/their success says it all. There are a lot of people who are not interviewed or often written about, but are credited to major works. They are clearly notable and have entries (e.g., Bangladesh (record producer). In regards to your argument of "never heard of him", please read: http://www.creativeloafing.com/music/article/13058131/the-biggest-rap-producer-youve-never-heard-of
How does WP:NORG relate to a music group or producers? If we are talking about McDonald's or the United Nations, I can understand this argument.
In regards to WP:NMUSIC:
Composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists, may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:
  • Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. YES
  • Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria. YES
Music producers are a key element of a songs success and are also entitled to certifications and awards, such as Grammy Awards (Please see: https://www.grammy.org/files/pages/producer_definitions_for_awards.pdf) Perhaps some of the terminology at WP:NMUSIC should be updated to avoid confusion from individuals not familiar with the subject.
Producers often credited as the writers and/or composers of music. Music credits can be a tricky thing. At times, the individuals are credited under their real names, artist names, group names, or even typos. N4 has been credited for all of these. Bobbybobbie (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
reply All articles have to meet the WP:GNG which means that there has to be significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. "Significant coverage" is defined as coverage that addresses the subject directly and in depth. None of the sources do this. Here is as requested a thorough look at all the references:
  • freekvanworkum.net-not independent as it is the web site of one of the members of N4 and doesn't even mention N4
  • noisey.vice.com- this is an interview with freek van workum that claims that N4 is an alias for freek van workum
  • Memory Lane- not independent, N4 is on their roster
  • The source- not in-depth, the article is about Kid ink N4 is simply listed with 9 other producers he works with
  • Billboard- doesn't mention N4
  • Barnes and Noble- not in depth, N4 is simply credited among 24 producers
  • WWE- doesn't mention N4
  • EA- doesn't mention N4
  • Billboard- doesn't mention N4
  • Tunefind- doesn't mention N4
  • Official Charts- doesn't mention N4
  • itunes- doesn't mention N4
So to summarise there is only one source that is in depth but is in fact a solo interview with Freek van workum that wrongly suggests that N4 is his alias. The subject must meet the criteria in WP:NORG because N4 is an organisation, in the way that Wikipedia defines it, that produces records for artists but it is not an artistic group such as a band so the WP:NMUSIC criteria do not apply (maybe that could be changed but this is not the place to discuss that). So I confirm my analysis that this page does not show notability for N4 and despite the fact that the company has produced notable artists and other producers are notable, notability is neither inherited nor inherent. Domdeparis (talk) 07:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
reply
  • Memory Lane (publishing group) - Listed to replace a poorly referenced link added to show the members of N4.
  • Noisey/Vice - N4 notability - Freek van Workum is a part of N4, a referral to N4 is inclusive of him. If N4 was not notable, they would not bother to mention it.
  • The Source - N4 is credited
  • Billboard - Song notability
  • Barnes and Noble - N4 is credited
  • WWE - Song notability
  • EA - Song notability
  • Billboard - Song notability
  • Tunefind - Song notability
  • Official Charts - Song notability
  • iTunes - Song notability
  • Allmusic - N4 is credited
  • Discogs - N4 is credited
All of those articles are mentioned to show the notability of the songs/albums, and then show that N4 (and it's members) are credited to those songs/albums.
"N4 is an organization". In this case WP:NORG does not apply, please read at the end of the first paragraph where it says, "For example, people gathered together for the purpose of making music are covered by WP:MUSIC." This is exactly what N4 does. As I have shown, N4 clearly satisfies the criteria listed in WP:MUSIC. Bobbybobbie (talk) 08:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
reply
And when you go to NMUSIC you will see that it refers to artists, bands, composers and lyricists. And as N4 have never been credited as being one of these for a notable song NMUSIC does not apply. I'm sorry but you are clutching at straws. I may be wrong there may be a precedent that overrules the notability guidelines but rather than trying to give a definition to something that is contrary to the guidelines it points to I would suggest that you search for sources that prove their notability as producers. Until then and so as keep this discussion manageable I will not reply any more. Good luck and happy editing. Domdeparis (talk) 08:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
reply
N4 has been clearly shown to consist of more than one member, the members have been listed together on all notable songs, either under their own names, under N4, or both, as producers, writers, and composers. Notability as producers/writers/composers has been proven. The links show their credits, even the art work on Money and the Power shows it. They are listed as a production/writer group (by the publishing group). Differentiating the individual names and the group names is trivial. Are you suggesting a page for each member of N4?
Perhaps the WP:MUSIC page does need to be updated. If a producer is credited and able to receive a Grammy Award is it not notable? Remember, they have been credited for production, writing, and composing the songs.
You seem to show a lack of understanding on this topic and went against a senior editors decision to not delete the page. No further input is required. Bobbybobbie (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can't let that one past. I originally tagged for speedy delete which is simply a way of avoiding a deletion discussion this was refused but that doesn't mean that the subject is notable. Please read WP:DPAFD this should help you understand the deletion process, and try and keep your comments on subject and avoid making personal remarks please, these are often seen by the community as being a way of trying to discredit another's arguments when one is on shaky ground. You said something interesting though could you clarify which songs N4 has been credited as having written or composed because this is clearly a criteria for notability if the song is notable. I may have missed that in the article. From what I can see there is just a list of songs produced. Domdeparis (talk) 09:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You consistently bring up irrelevant points and change your reason(s) for deletion. This is why I can only assume you are not very knowledgable on the topic of music.
The title "producer" if often used in place or alongside the titles "composer" and "writer". Please see: https://www.discogs.com/Kendrick-Lamar-Section-80/release/5360202 for Kendrick Lamar's album Section 80. There are no credits listed for writers or composers. By your logic, this album and it's producers have no notability.
Another example can be shown here: http://www.allmusic.com/album/through-the-pain-she-told-me-mw0000488310/credits. Sean Combs has been listed as a composer, and Diddy (the same person) has been listed as executive producer, primary artist and producer. It may seem confusing, but this is a common practice in the music industry.
Wikipedia's own page for Record producer needs some serious work, but this might help you: Understanding the Music Business. Please read under the section "Songpluggers" where it says, "In the rock and hip-hop fields, the artist generally either writes her own matieral or co-writes with a producer."
Additionally, see: Producers: What They Do & Why You Should Consider Using One. Please read under the section "What Do Producers Do?" where it says, "On the other end of the spectrum are the producers who are involved in every element of the recording from co-writing the songs to engineering to playing one or even all of the instruments."
Common sense should prevail in this situation, it is clear that N4 consists of more than one producer/writer/composer, all of whom are individually credited on each song/album alongside N4. Bobbybobbie (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Bobbybobbie: it is OK to edit your own comments if it has been only a short while but reediting your comments every 2 hours or so is not considered best practice. Please read WP:REDACT. Thank you Domdeparis (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for mentioning this, @Domdeparis:. I made some minor changes to improve the readability for any other editors. I can easily follow the guidelines set out at WP:REDACT.
I would like to add that your requirement of significant coverage is invalid. This falls within the "Criteria for musicians and ensembles".
In the case of this article, the following applies under "Criteria for composers and lyricists":
  • Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. YES
  • Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria. YES
In addition to this, please read the section "Others" where it states, "Composers and performers outside mass media traditions may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria":
reply
that's great congratulations! before I can withdraw the Afd can you please provide the sources that prove that N4 is credited as composer on notable songs because I don't think you've added them to the article page. Domdeparis (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:MUSIC where it states, "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."
Common sense would agree that the individual members of N4, alongside N4 itself - have been credited to several notable works.
Common sense would agree that in the example of Sean Combs (see here), that both names can used for the same person, but for different credits.
Common sense would agree that the title "producer" can and has been used with or in lieu of "composer" and/or "writer" (see here and see Section 80).
I have provided numerous examples and resources throughout this discussion - in order to educate you on the intricacies of crediting, and on notability - in the field of music.
I cannot completely blame you, as the page record producer is a mess, and this could carry on to other areas of Wikipedia, thus confusing those who have little to no prior knowledge on the subject. Bobbybobbie (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for trying to improve the article, @Domdeparis:. I am sorry if any of the comments seemed personal. Bobbybobbie (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
so no sources to show that N4 were the composers then? So nothing to back up the fact that they meet NMUSIC a part from your affirmation that producer=composer? So I'll let this ride out. If you want NMUSIC to be changed there's a talk page where you'll be able to discuss it with other "experts" like yourself. I nominated this page on the basis that it doesn't meet GNG which it doesn't. I gave you plenty of opportunites to improve the article pointed you to the different policies and you stubbornly camped on your position that producers are covered by NMUSIC. We'll see what others think now. Domdeparis (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Domdeparis:, I am flattered, but I don't consider myself an "expert"; however, I have had several years of experience in the music industry. How about yourself?
Do you actually read anything that I write here? I can't go on repeating myself. Numerous other articles on producers have been submitted and accepted on Wikipedia, based on the exact same criteria.
Question time:
  • Has N4 been credited at the same time as the members of N4?
  • Has N4 and/or its members been credited for writing and/or composing?
  • If N4 has been listed as a producer and it's members have been listed as writers and composers, what does common sense tell you?
  • Did you read all of the educational links that I posted here? If so, what did you learn from them? (Crediting, names in credits, and the role of a producer.)
You say that WP:MUSIC doesn't apply, when WP:NORG states that it does. Within WP:MUSIC, the most logical criteria would be "Criteria for composers and lyricists". *Gasps* Are you defying the notability criteria at WP:NORG in which you - yourself referred to? WP:GNG refers the subject of music specifically to WP:MUSIC (again).
To be honest, I have been waiting for other (knowledgable) people to contribute to this discussion the entire time. Bobbybobbie (talk) 07:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no! @Domdeparis:, I have found a few pages that do not meet YOUR criteria. Would you like to mark them all for speedy deletion? Here they are, in no particular order:
Do you want some more? Bobbybobbie (talk) 07:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Domdeparis (talk) 08:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my... I am not actually saying, "They exist! So should this!" I am saying, "Would you like to mark them all for speedy deletion?" (It's also known as sarcasm.)
You didn't answer my questions.
  • Has N4 been credited at the same time as the members of N4?
  • Has N4 and/or its members been credited for writing and/or composing?
  • If N4 has been listed as a producer and it's members have been listed as writers and composers, what does common sense tell you?
  • Did you read all of the educational links that I posted here? If so, what did you learn from them? (Crediting, names in credits, and the role of a producer.)
The members of N4 would have been listed (individually) under writing/composing for publishing reasons. This is common practice in the music industry. Yes, common sense continues to apply. Bobbybobbie (talk) 08:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This conversation is going round in circles we will have to agree to disagree and let others analyse the nomination. Domdeparis (talk) 08:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. In closing, please see The Corporation (record production team). They were credited under "producer" for the song "I Want You Back" by the Jackson 5, but were also credited individually - for writing here. (ASCAP is a very reliable source, when it comes to publishing.) Bobbybobbie (talk) 09:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out the above article it had a serious lack of sources to prove notability. A simple web search of "The Corporation Mowtown" turned up literally hundreds including Rolling Stone the Encyclopedia of Popular music the Telegraph Allmusic etc which all treat the subject in-depth. When a subject is really notable it is so easy to find the sources to prove GNG without having to use the notability criteria for a particular category of subject. I have added the sources maybe you could do the same thing for the other articles? Domdeparis (talk) 09:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, boy. Imagine being your teacher...
This example was clearly used to illustrate the fact that a record production group's name is often credited for production, whilst the individuals are credited for writing/composition. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? Bobbybobbie (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute. Are you going to mark The Corporation (record production team) for speedy deletion now?! Bobbybobbie (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Domdeparis:, you still never answered my questions.
  • Has N4 been credited at the same time as the members of N4?
  • Has N4 and/or its members been credited for writing and/or composing?
  • If N4 has been listed as a producer and it's members have been listed as writers and composers, what does common sense tell you?
  • Did you read all of the educational links that I posted here? If so, what did you learn from them? (Crediting, names in credits, and the role of a producer.)
We are discussing the fact that N4 is notable based on it's works (as outlined in WP:MUSIC). Bobbybobbie (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the very last time none of the sources point to N4 being notable as per WP:NORG or being the composer or songwriter of a notable song. Notability is not inherited this may be "your" common sense but it is contrary to Wikipedia policy please read this it should help you understand why your common sense is not acceptable to the wikipedia community. WP:NOTINHERITED. As you are so set on N4 being judged by NMUSIC criteria, which I contest, please read criteria 6 and the footnote at the end of these criteria. You really need to reread WP:GNG and try and take on board what is written there. You have been unable to supply sources where N4 is named as composer so I refuse to withdraw the nomination. I am now going to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass as I should have done a long while back, and let others decide. Repeating something 7 or 8 times doesn't make it true...either from my side or yours so lets just agree to disagree and drop the conversation and let others, who will have to wade through the sterile exchanges, decide if the article stays or not. Domdeparis (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, both WP:NORG and WP:GNG refer music articles to WP:MUSIC (why else would it exist?)
I've clearly shown that in the case of The Corporation (record production team), they too were credited under "producer" - for the song "I Want You Back" by the Jackson 5, but were also credited individually - for writing here.
Clearly, you refuse to answer my questions - as doing so would completely destroy your argument. Bobbybobbie (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here is yet another example: Stargate (music producers). Production teams are clearly credited individually (in many cases) for writing/composing. I would attribute this to publishing. Bobbybobbie (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to record production teams, some members may not be involved in a particular piece of work, therefore each member involved is also credited for publishing reasons. For a clear example of this, please see The Corporation (record production team) and look under the section "Songs". Bobbybobbie (talk) 05:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment having refreshed myself on WP:Music-- doesn't meet that either.Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Extended commentary
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It meets WP:MUSIC. Why do you people think it needs to meet WP:NORG? WP:NORG clearly refers music to WP:MUSIC. Can we please get people on here who understand the category of music? Bobbybobbie (talk) 10:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Um how can I put it...this editor is an admin with 11 years experience and 50,000 edits and I think he is probably pretty well versed in policy and notability guidelines for the various categories, or at least better than both you, with your 400 edits and I with my 6,000 edits. Domdeparis (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Domdeparis:It seems like somebody has called in an old friend.Bobbybobbie (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobbybobbie: I do hope you are not accusing me of Wikipedia:Canvassing @Dlohcierekim:. Domdeparis (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Domdeparis: The comments and timing seem a little suspicious. I sure hope not. Bobbybobbie (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"@Onel5969:Has composed a number of notable melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable music genre." Bobbybobbie (talk) 02:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite strenuous arguments above to the contrary, there are no sources to support "significant coverage in independent, reliable sources". The only significant coverage is not independent, and the only independent coverage is not significant. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Extended discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Eggishorn: Thank you for looking into the article. They have produced/written notable works as per WP:MUSIC.Bobbybobbie (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobbybobbie:, you may want to read this essay. Most editors, (myself among them) think that notability has to be demonstrated for the article subject on their own merits, not for something they are related to. Your statement that they have produced notable works, therefore, is not persuasive unless there is coverage about the producer group themselves. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Eggishorn:Please read under "Criteria for composers and lyricists" in WP:MUSIC. There is no mention of coverage, the same for "Others".
Composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists, may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:
  • Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. YES
  • Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria. YES
Nobody has been able to answer these questions, but they should help in the reasoning for creating a page for N4 and not two separate pages for each member; however, this can be done.
  • Has N4 been credited at the same time as the members of N4?
  • Has N4 and/or its members been credited for writing and/or composing?
  • If N4 has been listed as a producer and it's members have been listed as writers and composers, what does common sense tell you?Bobbybobbie (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since you bring it up, what common sense tells me, Bobbybobbie, is that you are likely either connected to this group or a fan and are trying to hammer this conversation into using Wikipedia to promote a group of, at best, very marginally notable producers. The "composers" criterion is not evaluated in a vacuum. There have to be actual sources about N4 itself. There is nothing more than credits for the group, which is not persuasive. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Eggishorn: Close... I saw the credits on the cover of the Kid Ink song they produced and looked into them some more. I then saw that they meet the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Hmmm... people really get upset when I question their knowledge here. I am certain that the sources I have here provided are more than sufficient. I proved that the members were credited for writing, production, and composition. WP:MUSIC is satisfied. Bobbybobbie (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Eggishorn: oh dear...I think you may have started something that you are going to regret...I guarantee that you will have a repeat of the same futile conversation above. "1/ N4 are producers and have produced some notable songs, 2/ some producers are credited as being songwriters so all producers are the songwriters of the songs they produce even if they aren't credited as such. 3/ songwriters of notable songs are notable themselves. 4/ N4 is notable! Q.E.D" (sound of head being banged against a brick wall and the thud of sticks on dead donkeys all around). Domdeparis (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Domdeparis: Well... It clearly does say in WP:MUSIC that they are notable for notable works. I personally don't care what you, or others think, but I go by what has been set out in WP:MUSIC. Anybody who mentions WP:NORG should be disregarded from this discussion. Bobbybobbie (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Domdeparis: If you know how to search for credits, then do so. You didn't even know what Allmusic.com was before this discussion... Try ASCAP too. Bobbybobbie (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Domdeparis:, I'm not certain I don't regret it already. @Bobbybobbie:, the insurmountable problem is that WP:NMUSIC itself says: ...meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. emphasis in original It goes on to say: ...the article itself must document notability through the use of reliable sources, and no criterion listed in this page confers an exemption from having to reliably source the article just because passage of the criterion has been claimed. emphasis in original This argument is claiming that exact type of exemption from reliable sourcing. As I said before, no independent source offered is significant, and no significant source is independent. This means that, whatever chain of causation (as it were) you wish to claim for recognizing notability has to fail. I'm sure the closer of this discussion will recognize this. You should also read WP:NPA and WP:BLUDGEON. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Eggishorn:Haha! Oh you are very cheeky! You forgot to quote, "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted" Reliable sources are all there. What would you deem reliable sites for music crediting? They produced, wrote, composed notable songs. End of discussion. Bobbybobbie (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the discussion is over. No, not for the reason (or complete lack thereof) you state. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You failed to answer my questions (as you would have embarrassed yourselves), but continue to converse. I can see that most of you have little understanding of WP:MUSIC and keep referring to other articles to back up your argument. Bobbybobbie (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG and WP:NORG clearly refer music articles to WP:MUSIC and this article's subjects come under "Composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists." Why argue against this? There is even a section under "Others". Bobbybobbie (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No desperation over here, Dlohcierekim. I stick to the facts. Bobbybobbie (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


This has been open for some time and all of a sudden several people have decided to partake. Interesting. Bobbybobbie (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody can actually counter my points in regards to WP:MUSIC, nobody can answer my questions, and everybody keeps referring to WP:NORG (when it says to refer to WP:MUSIC). Somebody is saying that other articles supersede WP:MUSIC (where is it stated?) It's all a little strange. Bobbybobbie (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article also meets Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance. Some of you have recently had some speedy deletions declined on this basis. I am starting to think something is up here... It is seems that most people on Wikipedia have general knowledge, but few have specific knowledge on any particular topic. Bobbybobbie (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Domdeparis: You are on the record for saying, "I am not a music buff", yet you continue to judge the topic? That says a lot... I see in a another recent case, you continue to misinterpret WP:MUSIC and argue that an album needs greater evidence of notability, when it was in several music charts (which is a criterion). Wait, this one is my favorite: "As far as I am aware producers are not concerned by WP:NMUSIC so must fulfill WP:NORG which as presented this company does not meet." Anybody with music knowledge will laugh uncontrollably at this. It speaks volumes for the rest of your argument(s) and anybody blindly agreeing with you. Bobbybobbie (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, they have been credited for production, writing, and composing several gold and platinum selling (notable) songs. This passes WP:MUSIC, how does it not?
How do people with little to no experience on music and WP:MUSIC have a voice on here? I get the feeling that we need to make some policy changes. In the future, specific admins should have access to specific categories - when it comes to the deletion process.

I also created DJ Montay - which was deleted by somebody not understanding the music criteria, and then placed back in it's article space. It too follows the same criteria that N4 has, yet @Domdeparis: sees no problem with it and even contributed an edit to it! This is too much...

This is not about me fighting for the page, it is not personal; rather, it's about a fair and reasonable process - where only people who thoroughly understand the topic(s) are involved. Bobbybobbie (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Simply put, if the sources provided don't amount to coverage above the standard expected by GNG, the subject of the article isn't notable. To head off any possible bludgeoning, I can honestly claim to be my own person, not canvassed by anyone and simply having noticed an abnormally- (and absurdly-, by now) long AfD in the log. I claim no specific knowledge or lack thereof in relation to the subject beyond that of a semi-educated layperson, which I'm pretty sure is what the average user of this website is. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thank you for your response, @BigHaz:. What is your take on the article in relation to WP:MUSIC? This is where confusion sets in. I have followed the guide for other work, and it was deemed sufficient; however, in this case - it is not. Bobbybobbie (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not looking specifically at anything other than WP:GNG, frankly. That's the "operating manual" for me. Neither am I looking to continue or buy into the war you've been waging with other users regarding this article and their ability or lack thereof to assess its notability. Since you've asked, though, I'll give you a very quick answer and leave the matter at that. MUSIC, ORG or any other guideline regarding topic-specific notability is precisely that - a guideline regarding topic-specific notability. A subject fulfilling enough of the criteria there is highly likely to have generated enough coverage to pass GNG. If they haven't, for some reason, generated that coverage, then they don't magically get an article simply because they tick NMUSIC's boxes. Likewise, they may have generated that coverage without ticking those boxes, in which case they're still eligible for an article. A band I saw on the weekend fits that last example perfectly, before you ask if that ever happens. Looking at this article, it's been demonstrated to my satisfaction that this particular team of producers haven't got the coverage required. Therefore, unless there's more coverage out there, they aren't notable within the definition of the term used here. I appreciate that that's annoying and disheartening to read that in relation to an article you've clearly worked on for some time, but speaking from years of experience I can say it does happen to just about everyone at least once. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not disheartening at all - I do not take this personal. If admins/editors were able to clearly and specifically point to the correct criteria, it would be an easy process. I have been dealing with people unfamiliar with the topic of music and this is resulted in the lengthy discussion/debate. As soon as people start mentioning WP:NORG in regards to producers - it's a red flag on their comprehension of the topic. As I mentioned earlier, I have had an article approved and have seen several others approved on the same grounds. It is rather confusing. Bobbybobbie (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to WP:GNG:
"Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
I have supplied the Noisey/Vice interview which is non-trivial coverage in addition to other multiple sources crediting their works (as per WP:MUSIC). Does not fail WP:GNG Bobbybobbie (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since apparently the saga hasn't ended yet, some responses. Firstly, I refer you to the first (bolded) sentence of the GNG. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Let's apply this to the source you mention. Is it "significant coverage"? There is some debate on this point earlier in this discussion (yes, I read everything before I commented, apparently I had nothing better to do at the time), but I'll take it as read that if you're going to interview someone who is a member of a group about what he and the group does/do, you're generating "significant coverage". "Reliable source"? Not being overly well-up on Dutch music journalism, I can't confirm in either direction, but let's assume for the sake of things that this is a reliable source. It certainly gives that outward impression. "Independent of the subject"? Ah, here's a problem. An interview - certainly one like this - is only marginally above a press release, in that Mr van Workum is doing all of the talking. That's not independent. Additionally, we should note that the word used throughout the GNG is "sources" in the plural. Even were this interview to be a different kind of music journalism, it still only amounts to the one source. You're right that there's "no fixed number of sources required", but with wording like that, I'd say we're on the hook for at least two, and two secondary sources for preference, rather than the primary one here. The fact that the other sources indicate that the producers have produced the given productions doesn't get around the fact that the article still needs notability not to be deleted. In the interests of having the article kept, may I respectfully suggest that the energies you're putting into flogging the same dead horse you did with other editors be expended in finding these additional sources? That's abundantly more likely to achieve the outcome you so clearly desire. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to familiarize yourself with WP:IV before saying such things. The entire introduction is given by the interviewer (secondary source), and the remainder by the interviewee (primary source). By the way, the article is from Vice Media. Bobbybobbie (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no clear definition. You can say that WP:GNG is all that matters, but then why does WP:MUSIC under "others" have exceptions for this topic? If this was clear then there would be no further discussion. Nobody here has been able to give a valid answer. It seems as though decisions on here are seasonal. I am not seeing any consistency. Bobbybobbie (talk) 07:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for assuming that I don't know what I'm talking about. If you insist on continuing to flog the horse, though, let me point out that per IV, as you've rightly stated, the information given by the interviewee is a primary source. You may have missed it earlier, but for a subject to be notable, it needs coverage in secondary sources. Even if we take the interviewer's words as the equivalent of one entire secondary source, I'm not seeing the second or subsequent one the policy requires. The "exceptions under 'others'" you're talking about begins with the wording "Composers and performers outside mass media traditions may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria". Last I checked, current pop music isn't "outside mass media traditions", so don't go insulting everyone's intelligence by clutching at that straw. Even were current pop music somehow mysteriously covered by this exception, you're still missing the point: if a composer or performer fits one of those criteria, there's highly likely to be the sources that GNG requires. In other words, it's not enough to wave your hands in the general vicinity of the article and say "Ah, but they've done X, Y and Z. Therefore, they're notable." You need to actually prove that with sources.
As for your claim that there's "no clear definition", "[no] consistency" and "decisions...are seasonal", that's just simply not true. There is absolutely a clear definition - just not one you like the outcome of. Consistency is what Wikipedia aims for, but I don't think anyone could say hand-on-heart that every single article currently existing should do so and in the format it currently exists in. That's why people can edit the articles and nominate those that they don't believe should be here for deletion, so that others can also review that and agree or disagree. If you see an article you feel needs editing, edit the darn thing. If you feel the subject of the article isn't notable, stick it on AfD and there'll be others coming along to discuss that. Again, I know it sucks to have people say "You know this article you've spent time writing? Yeah, it should be deleted". You're saying you're not taking it personally, but the fact that you're constantly making the same refuted arguments over and over again demonstrates that you're less interested in either trying to improve the article and/or build an encyclopedia than you are in trying to wage some kind of unarmed combat and irritate people. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since when does only pop have anything to do with mass media? It can refer to behind the scenes personal, such as producers, writers, etc. The artists/bands are usually subject to the public. Bobbybobbie (talk) 08:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Consistency is what Wikipedia aims for, but I don't think anyone could say hand-on-heart that every single article currently existing should do so and in the format it currently exists in." Wh... what?! Bobbybobbie (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you're not being wilfully obtuse, consider, among other things, this essay, the forum in which we currently find ourselves, the fact that you can edit articles and the fact that anyone can create articles. Are they the kinds of things you would expect to find in a "finished product", because I sure as hell wouldn't. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is the craziest thing I have seen on Wikipedia - thus far... Bobbybobbie (talk) 08:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So why are there new articles being created, existing articles being edited and other existing articles being deleted 24 hours of the day, 7 days of the week? Does that not mean that Wikipedia is something other than the finished product? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BigHaz:...exhausting isn't it? Domdeparis (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly, yes. I've run up against this sort of chicanery before, though, so I came prepared. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobbybobbie: there's something that I am very curious about, if you don't like what goes on here in Wikipedialand and everyone seems to be incapable of understanding your reasoning why stay? Why on earth do you not just walk away and do something else maybe create a blog about music where you can write whatever you like and distribute your wisdom without being hampered by the unbelievers. Domdeparis (talk) 08:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question: If I create an article for the "Cash me outside" girl's music career, will you all back it up? It certainly passes WP:GNG.

It's not about my opinion, it's about facts. It was not me, but others - who credited them and presented them with platinum and gold certifications - which deems them notable for their work(s). This has all been outlined in WP:MUSIC. Wikipedia needs some work in this area, and I am happy to contribute to it.
When I am on an article about music and other editors keep referring to WP:NORG over WP:MUSIC, then go on to say outlandish things - like, "Consistency is what Wikipedia aims for, but I don't think anyone could say hand-on-heart that every single article currently existing should do so and in the format it currently exists in." Yes... there certainly is a lot to discuss... Bobbybobbie (talk) Bobbybobbie (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is that Wikipedia is a community where we strive for consensus of opinion and the NMUSIC criteria were first created in 2005 they have been modified over a thousand times and no-one has deemed fit to add producers in the list of others. I saw that you started a section on this subject on the NMUSIC talk page and the person who replied said exactly the same thing as here. Even if you succeeded in getting the word producers added ALL articles have to meet GNG. There are criteria for singers and songwriters etc that point towards notability but this does not guarantee notability. A songwriter that was credited for a platinum selling record is presumed notable (this avoids speedy delete or PRODDING) but the sources have to prove his notability and not just prove that he was credited with a platinum record. If no-one wrote about this songwriter and no in-depth secondary sourceS (plural) can be found he doesn't have the necessary notability to warrant a WP page and that article could be challenged in an Afd nomination. You have an interview with Freek v w. Who is one of the members of N4 (notability is NOT inherited so the source 'could' be considered as helping to point to HIS notability and not N4's). You could maybe build on this and create an article about this person but you would need more sources to show notability. Domdeparis (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we need to work on the entire subject. I said this in the start and you were up in arms about the thought of changing the wording of any Wikipedia guidelines. The person I was talking to couldn't give a definitive answer and mentioned that others are welcome to contribute. I don't entirely agree with his definition of notability (Re: New sounds), but this is where we contribute as a community.

As per your not inherited argument, the article clearly names N4 for his work(s) (so do the credits).

Well, it meets WP:GNG. It says "no fixed number" and "generally" more than one source. It all depends on the depth of the information provided on the subject. It doesn't have to be an entire article based on the topic. On this topic, I have provided a non-trivial source and several reliable sources backing up the group's achievements - as per WP:MUSIC. Bobbybobbie (talk) 09:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
it's like talking to a brick wall... I apologise in advance as it is not normally the done thing but I'm going to have to shout now... THE SOURCES YOU ADDED DO NOT PROVIDE IN-DEPTH COVER OF THE SUBJECT OF THE ARTICLE DIRECTLY SO DO NOT HELP PROVE ITS NOTABILITY AS PER WP:GNG. Domdeparis (talk) 10:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to read the guidelines on the definition of "significant coverage". This is an article with room for improvement. There is no need to be so hasty to delete it, when it obviously has merit. Bobbybobbie (talk) 10:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it's an article with room for improvement, why not do that? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - N4 does appear to meet criteria in Wikipedia:NMUSIC. The guideline says "Composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists, may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:" So we now know the company may be notable. Now we need to determine if it is notable. To do that we look at the sources provided and available. I didn't find any sources better than what has already been provided in the article. The sources in the article do not show significant coverage by independent reliable sources. This tells me they do not meet our notability guidelines. ~ GB fan 11:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input, this is a much better explanation than what the others gave. Bobbybobbie (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment--We are discussing the topic of music notability here. Hopefully, there will be some improvements to the current guidelines. This has been a lengthy, but useful AFD. Bobbybobbie (talk) 04:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment hi @Bobbybobbie: thanks for adding the extra sources to the article, I have checked them out and unfortunately they don't seem to improve the notability of the subject as none of them mention N4. I would invite the other participants to do the same if they so wish. If you can find some that do please don't hesitate to let us know here so that the different participants can check them out and see if that changes their opinion. Domdeparis (talk) 09:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I am still adding further resources to the article. I will get some more in-depth credits on there soon. Bobbybobbie (talk) 09:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi just looked at the 3 sources added which prove that Freek van workum was a writer on the songs along with Nick Luscombe and 3 other writers that are not part of N4 but this still isn't in-depth coverage and the sources still mention N4 as producers. You may have enough sources to start an article on Freek van workum now but you will need some more in-depth coverage I think too but it's a close pass for him. Unfortunately none of the sources talk directly in-depth about N4 so they do not really help this Afd. Happy hunting. Domdeparis (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rehashing the same arguments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You seem to be on a witch-hunt (of sorts). This article passes WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. This is why I created it - in the first place.
This AFD was filed on false grounds, as at the beginning of WP:N (the article W:GNG is within), it states, "A topic is presumed to merit an article if:
1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right;" (The box has WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO inside of it.)
Where on Wikipedia does it state that WP:GNG applies to WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO? It may surprise you, but this is what it clearly says. Please pay attention to detail. Bobbybobbie (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The subject appears to depend on the notability of the artists it produces but there is almost a total disregard for significant independent sources. With that being said, I could not find any better sources than what is already available in the article to pass notability guidelines.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Extended discussion-- Y'all! You're off topic. Again.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment I would actually like to thank @Domdeparis: for nominating this page as it has created a greater awareness to the topic of record producer. Let's work together to improve Wikipedia. Bobbybobbie (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I wish I could say the same thing but you have exhausted us all by saying the same thing over and over again and refusing to accept the consensus. If you wanted to create greater awareness for producers you should have stayed on the NMUSIC talk page rather than wasting everyone's time here. An admin had to take this to ANI to try and stop your disruptive editing and even that didn't work...so no thanks will be coming your way from me. Domdeparis (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dlohcierekim, so I get in trouble for repeating myself and I also get in trouble for making (new) comments - thanking the opposing party (even though I don't agree)? This is ridiculous. (corruption?)Bobbybobbie (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobbybobbie: You're not "getting in trouble" so don't be dramatic. Dlohcierekim merely collapsed some off-topic discussion that interferes with the ability of an evaluating admin to actually evaluate the consensus of the discussion about N4. Your comment, however, betrays the issue that has permeated every discussion that you have been involved in: That you think there are "opposing parties" in the first place. Please, please, read WP:Wikipedia is not about winning and the other essays and guidelines referenced there. Multiple editors (including, obviously, myself) have cautioned you here and in other places about the way you apparently feel compelled to respond to every comment and this is no different. You have been already warned that this behavior will get you blocked or banned. Let me take a different tack: Do you think that this style of interaction you are adopting is working? Wikipedia is an enormous project with over 125,000 active editors. The only way that works is through consensus. It you decide "consensus is wrong" then you will not have an enjoyable or productive time here. I urge you, one anonymous Internet user to another, to carefully consider if tilting at this particular windmill has accomplished anything useful. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Y'ALL! Could we please carry on the off-topic conversations at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/N4 (record producers)? Thanks.Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/N4_(record_producers)&oldid=1138108525"