The article has three sources, one of them is a dead link, a second is to their own website and the third is about them closing, there is nothing here to suggest that they pass WP:NCORP, unless sources can be found it should go to WP:AFD. Theroadislong (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
The conflicted editor is merely building a gigantic "trumpery" list of previous clients sourced to Allmusic, it is totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia article, which requires the sources to have indepth coverage. Theroadislong (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
- I don't see it as a big problem. I started the list myself,[1] and she is expanding it. Similar articles such as Record Plant, Prairie Sun Recording Studios, Fantasy Studios and The Automatt have various lists of artists, albums, labels, producers, etc. It's standard information. Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
- and you are also an Audio engineer in the same industry, so maybe that's why you can't see the problem. Theroadislong (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
- I am an audio engineer but for live sound, which has hardly any intersection with recording studios. The important point here is that lots of articles include a list of accomplishments. Nothing strange about that. Binksternet (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
- other crap exists is never a good argument. Theroadislong (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
- You mentioned "indepth coverage" which is one of the requirements for notability, for determining whether an article should be kept or deleted. In-depth coverage is not required for any particular fact presented in an article. Something as minor as a price tag or weather temperature or YouTube number of views can be taken from one source. Binksternet (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
- The section "Grammy, AMA, MTV Awards" is totally unsourced and there is no indication that any of the awards or nominations were connected to the studio? Theroadislong (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
- Yes, I see that. The problem can be fixed two ways: by adding references to the second table or by moving the Grammy stuff up into the first table, adding a column or two on the right-hand side. But the second table is not violating WP:Verifiability which says "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." The information presented in the second table is certainly verifiable. Binksternet (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
- But is it relevant? and... "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution".Theroadislong (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
- Every recording studio is judged by the success of their output. If the output is recognized by awards bodies then their reputation is enhanced. Studios often display gold records and Grammy award plaques. This particular studio is defunct but their legacy still rests on the recognition given to the albums that came through their hands. Regarding the way forward, there are a few options. I suggested moving the second table information up into the first table, and there's also the option of referencing the second table. A cursory look at the second table makes me think all of it is sourced to Unique's own website, which is acceptable per WP:PRIMARY which says "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts..." That looks like the path of least resistance. Binksternet (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
