Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lovepump United Records

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. Randykitty (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lovepump United Records[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Defunct indie label which put out almost nothing of noting to have its own page. Website is closed and it hasnt released a record since 2011 Second Skin (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the coverages about this subject that I can found only ever mentioned it once as the lable company for some music product. Definite not enough coverages to prove its notability. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't even looked at the page yet but we shouldn't accept bad rationales on AfD. This one falls apart in light of WP:NTEMP. I won't !vote keep as Tutwakhamoe's !vote looks more solid than nom does. small jars tc 15:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete scattered mentions in Linkedin and on Facebook, which haven't been updated in a decade. No sources found for this defunct record label, was likely an attempt at PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lovepump United is no more, but they put out the original HEALTH albums, a group that went on to score Rockstar Games Max Payne 3, score Grand Theft Auto V: Arena War expansion (and do an original song for GTA V as well), the largest piece of entertainment in history. They also recorded an original song for Cyberpunk 2077, and its anime Edgerunners. CP2077 was the biggest game of its year and Edgerunners was awarded anime of the year by Crunchyroll. Not to mention their original music and collaborations with artists such as Nine Inch Nails. 2600:1700:4E00:2AB0:B503:4EA6:5A34:CD3E (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can provide some coverages of the company (News articles, books, interviews of the company managements, etc.), the company just doesn't pass the notability requirements with the currently cited sources. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The label neatly falls under what WP:MUSIC calls one of the more important indie labels; its roster is impressive - AIDS Wolf, Genghis Tron, HEALTH, The USA Is a Monster, Indian Jewelry, and more to boot released for the imprint. The article has a couple of interview pieces which are helpful for context and sourcing, and the label's offerings were routinely covered in the independent music press of the time. Chubbles (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Under WP:CORPDEPTH, notability of the product doesn't necessarily equal to the notability of the corporation tho. We'll need multiple independent and reliable sources to support the information given on the article, and as of now there aren't enough to prove its notability. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NCORP is not a good benchmark for label notability, though for some reason it keeps cropping up in such discussions. The notability of record label articles is best left to experts in music, rather than experts in corporations, and I have always held that we should look to the former for judgments on what label articles to keep and what to dismiss. Chubbles (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you or any other editors can provide sufficient sources to the article, then I'll have no objection to keep. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 3 days and not a single qualified source had been added. I'm starting to doubt the capability of these "experts in music" when it cames to proving the notability of a record company. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess, speaking for myself, I don't see that as a necessary condition for keeping the article, which already has a couple of sources (not inlined, but that's ultimately not determinative) and which has the necessary level of roster importance and coverage of its artists that it clears the threshold of what an expert in the area would want to see. I could spend hours (that I don't have) adding a bunch of reviews of Lovepump United releases, but that's neither helpful to readers of the article (it would just be to satisfy - or more likely, fail to satisfy - Wikipedia editors inclined to delete) nor likely to save it in this discussion (and the only reason to add them would be in the hopes this discussion would change as a result). In the larger scope, I'm seeing record label articles getting picked off more and more frequently, and in almost every case (when there are substantial numbers of notable artists on the label), all I see is a worse encyclopedia which fails to properly show the connections between artists on the same label; we lose the hyperlinked connective tissue that demonstrates why these bands are related to each other. I guess that means this becomes an(other) area where Wikipedia simply becomes an insufficient resource for information on a topic; thankfully, there are other websites, like Discogs, that are taking up the slack. Chubbles (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My guy, the three cited sources are either interviews (i.e. primary sources) or reporting by student newspaper. And none of the objectors can bring in any sufficient sources to prove its notability. Notability guideline was put in place for a reason, removing it doesn't necessarily make Wikipedia better.

And as for "label articles getting picked off more and more frequently", well, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Other sites can have a page for every record company if they please, but Wikipedia honestly can't. Even if this AfD ended with keep, later some other editor might proposed another AfD, since the fundamental problem with the sourcing still exist.

I have been participating in the deletion process of articles for a while now, and I can say with confidence that music is the area where the sourcing were the most severely insufficient. In the first decade of Wikipedia's existence, too many artists or organizations just put themselves or their products on this site without being held to the same standards as new articles created today. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"label articles getting picked off more and more frequently", I think Wikipedia in general had way too much leeway for music groups and labels back in the day, so removing these very niche labels is the right move. Fun anecdote: I did admittedly get a article for a band that my ex-girlfriend was in removed off the site (I'm not going to say what it was to avoid incriminating but it's not a popular band and you probably havent heard of it). I didn't do it because I was vindictive, but more so it was just a very mid band with only a couple thousand Spotify streams at most. Maybe that band was acceptable(-ish) back during the days of Myspace, and same can be said about this record label. Lovepump haven't done anything businesswise in over a decade. Perhaps at the time this page was made it seemed more plausible cuz the artist's albums that they (the label) put out could blow up bigger, and the roster itself could have grown more extensively, but neither happened. Arguably only Pictureplane and maybe Heat are (borderline) arguably "impressive" here Second Skin (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find a source that is unbiased, independent, and that contains a significant amount of information about this label. While I understand Chubbles' reasoning above, reliable, independent sources containing significant coverage must be found to justify the existence of any article, and this one fails these criteria. Nythar (💬-🍀) 03:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I am surprised this is up for AfD. This is a label with numerous internationally notable and established associated acts; that also has a substantial amount of local independent coverage from reviewers, interviewers, and local news. It didn't take much effort to uncover these sources through Google search. I've added a bunch of them to the opening section of the entry.

In 2011 the label was notable enough to have been identified by Billboard (magazine) as one of America's top 50 record labels. That, coupled with the notable bands under its wing, alongside independent coverage showing its cultural relevance to the LA indie scene, Canadian rock scene, and international music scene, I think makes an insurmountable case as to this label's notability. Jack4576 (talk) 09:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those websites are all WP:ROUTINE coverage and do not prove this label is notable. Nythar (💬-🍀) 19:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

False. They include reviews of the label and its material. That goes beyond what is described in WP:ROUTINE.

The Billboard top 50 label list is also clearly not WP:ROUTINE and is directly demonstrative of notability.

The notability of the acts associated with this label suggests that it is notable. Jack4576 (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to this list, then you're correct; it isn't WP:ROUTINE. It does not, however, significantly cover the subject. Nythar (💬-🍀) 01:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage is provided by other sources, including local reviews and other news from the music scene; Both in LA and Canada. Note that coverage can be significant even if it only occurs at a local level.

That top 50 list merely serves to add some weight to the case of notability. The numerous notable music acts under this label additionally adds to the case for notability.

I still think this is clearly a strong keep. I’d be interested to hear some other opinions. Jack4576 (talk) 05:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reference to Billboard magazine? What is in the article is not Billboard magazine. // Timothy :: talk 17:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and ORG. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Interview	1. "Lovepump United". ckuw.ca. Retrieved 2023-05-09.
Promo bio about Jake Friedman. Not SIGCOV addressing the article subject directly and indepth	2. ^ "Jake Friedman". University of the Underground. 2018-02-21. Retrieved 2023-05-09.
Name listed, not SIGCOV. This is not Billboard magazine and no link to a source.	3. ^ "Billboards counts 50 best indie labels in America, are big fans of Tri Angle". dmy.co. Retrieved 2023-05-09.
Tour dates	4. ^ BrooklynVegan Staff. "RTX (Drag City) – 2008 Tour Dates (tonight, tomorrow, SXSW)". BrooklynVegan. Retrieved 2023-05-09.
Album promo	5. ^ BrooklynVegan Staff. "HEALTH remix LP out soon, here's the Pink Stallone MP3 (and dates, a ticket contest & other stuff)". BrooklynVegan. Retrieved 2023-05-09.
CD release and show promo	6. ^ BrooklynVegan Staff. "(Angel) Deradoorian releasing a CD & playing shows (win tix)". BrooklynVegan. Retrieved 2023-05-09.
Coverage is "it’s released via Lovepump Records" nothing more, no SIGCOV	7. ^ "Pictureplane: Thee Physical, PopMatters". PopMatters. 2011-07-26. Retrieved 2023-05-09.
Song of the Day, no SIGCOV about subject	8. ^ Writer, Staff. "Song of the Day: Fly away with Pictureplane". Columbus Monthly. Retrieved 2023-05-09.
Database record	9. ^ "Pictureplane - Thee Physical - Diggers Factory". www.diggersfactory.com. Retrieved 2023-05-09.
Tour data	10. ^ BrooklynVegan Staff. "HEALTH – 2010 tour dates w/ Indian Jewelry & Gold Panda, new remix CD & Eric Wareheim video". BrooklynVegan. Retrieved 2023-05-09.
Coverage is "has been associated with the American labels Lovepump United and Skin Graft Records" nothing more. No SIGCOV	11. ^ "Nocturne of October 7, 2011". MAC Montréal. Retrieved 2023-05-09.

BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from IS RS. // Timothy :: talk 17:16, 18 May 2023 (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.