Talk:Cavity Search Records

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 January 2024. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 November 2023. The result of the discussion was keep.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Record Labels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of record labels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Record LabelsWikipedia:WikiProject Record LabelsTemplate:WikiProject Record Labelsrecord labels articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Oregon Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cavity Search Records. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130930054650/http://frenchkisslabelgroup.com/mission-statement/ to http://frenchkisslabelgroup.com/mission-statement/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

public relations editing suspected. contents manipulation by Cavity Search Records controlled accounts[edit]

Checked edit history. A handful of throwaway accounts are identified that have substantially alter the article contents Graywalls (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC) Also, I removed catalog entry added by Earflaps, which was determined to be a sock puppet of Musiclover650 and sockmaster's block was in place at the time contents were added. An exhaustive list of products, past and present is something for their website, not on encyclopedia. Graywalls (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am restoring the discography and the full list of artists, as this is not fundamentally an exhaustive list of products, but rather a publication history, a discography (read as analogous to a bibliography), which is of encyclopedic interest. Even if it was added by a COI account, it is not inherently promotional in nature and has encyclopedic value to readers interested in the article subject. Chubbles (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, list of everything published by someone is not appropriate as "bibliography". This shouldn't be here. There's no consensus to restore the catalog like contents initially added by public relations effort. I have listed this discussion for third opinion Graywalls (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in the deletion discussion, there's nothing wrong with retaining neutral, encyclopedic, and well-organized information, even if it was added by a COI editor. I await the 3O opinions. Chubbles (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3O Response: I agree with @Chubbles. MOS:DISCOGRAPHY allows discographies on artist pages, and I don't see a good reason we can't include one on a record label page. A discography also meets NLIST and so is fine for inclusion in an article. Pinging @Graywalls. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Artist =! corporation though. I asked, not specifically to this article, but in general on WP:NOT talk page and that was the comment I got. Graywalls (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem and Voorts: Graywalls (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We include discographies on the pages of artists and other creatives as that is expected for those that are the primary party responsible for those works, but not on their publishers or labels, as these groups do not have significant creative input into the output. Masem (t) 23:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if that's meant to describe aspirational principles or current status, but there certainly are discographies on many record label pages as a matter of fact, even if they were not wanted. I argued that they are wanted, because people seeking information about a record label, overwhelmingly, are interested in the label's recorded output. This is fundamental to the encyclopedic coverage of the topic, and collates information about associated artists - associated, that is, by being labelmates - which often reveals sonic and even political or philosophical confluences in a way that is not captured purely through artist discographies or even, most of the time, by the prose summaries. I strongly disagree that labels have no significant creative input into the music they release; I actually have a hard time understanding how that claim could be defended. Chubbles (talk) 02:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concur here. They're certainly relevant content, useful to our readers, etc. What's the case against inclusion? Elli (talk | contribs) 05:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]