Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lovitt 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Lovitt Records

 * – ( View AfD View log )

advertisement masqueraded as an article. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Recording labels/companies do not fall under WP:NBAND, but rather NCORP, so appears according to a most recent discussion on this matter at WT:Notability and there seems to be no overruling sustained consensus that it should be evalutated otherwise. Graywalls (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is this and this, but they do not amount to significant coverage. Mukedits (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please note that a new editor has added these and other sources to the article. Chubbles (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. I do not know any of these bands, but if any have significant accomplishments, then perhpahs this label should be kept. The way it is, it doesn't appear so. Lesliechin1 (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please note that several of the bands have significant accomplishments. Chubbles (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It's not clear to me why deletion (i.e., redlinking) would be preferable to merging into the page for Dischord Records, this (genuinely influential) label's distributor. There is encyclopedic value in being able to interlink, and thereby show a relationship, between The Mercury Program, Division of Laura Lee, Engine Down, and the myriad other bands associated with each other by the fact of having all been signed to this label. Chubbles (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete the article is about a non notable independent label, plus it heavily lacks sources. --K. Peake 11:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please note, the article no longer heavily lacks sources. Another editor, who has not weighed in at this AfD, has added a large number of new sources to the article. Chubbles (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Given the recent activity shoring up this article, I am changing my !vote to Keep, as the article now demonstrates independent notability such that merging is no longer a better option. Chubbles (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * comment Chicago Tribune, Chicago Reader, and Washignton City Paper, Paste Magazine, Indy Week are not significant coverage. As for DCist, Multiple coverage by the same journalist/publication is considered one source, and this source is not independent since much of the contents is based on interview with Lovitt. In order to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, there must be significantly, intellectually independent, secondary coverage in multiple sources and thus far, this article fails this criteria. Graywalls (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - according to, the label was featured in magazine Punk Planet, pages 58-61, no. 23, March-April 1998.  78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 15:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Further comment - indicates the label is long-established as important to the Washington D.C. music scene.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 15:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * comment ok, although I'm not seeing what amounts to significant coverage in the context of WP:SIRS. The coverage needs to be significant, intellectually independent, reliable and secondary (does not include "dependent" secondary); and there must be multiple such sources to satisfy the absolute minimum requirements of NCORP. It's possible that Punk news could be too narrow of a focus for WP:AUD satisfaction and it could be an industry magazine? (see ORGIND). Graywalls (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I reiterate, as you do to the contrary, that I do not believe NCORP is the most appropriate standard for record labels, as NMUSIC #5 has been the lonstanding precedent. NMUSIC #5 is very clearly met in this case, but I also do not believe it the only notability standard that should be considered.  The  mentioned disussion was very poorly attended and did not include editors familiar with the topic area.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 19:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Personally, I believe that WP:ORG and specifically WP:CORPDEPTH are the perfect examples of where WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP has overrun common sense. As far as I am concerned, WP:ORG should simply now not be used, ever, and we have to evaluate notability of organizations directly based on WP:GNG. However, in this case, the sources given in the article are too weak to support the kind of significant coverage addressing the subject directly and in detail that WP:GNG requires. The only possible exception is the DCist ref. However, that's an interview with the label's producer and we generally consider interviews as not counting towards notability. The other possible source (not currently cited in the article) is the 1998 Punk Planet piece mentioned by 78.26 above. I found this source online and it turns out to also be an interview. All the other sources that I could see provide coverage that is either too brief or too indirect or both. I don't think there is a plausible case for passing WP:GNG here. Regarding the WP:NMUSIC argument, I am somewhat sympathetic to it (and I don't view the talk-page discussion reference above as establishing any sort of consensus on the matter). But until and unless there is a more clear determination of whether and how WP:NMUSIC may be applicable to music labels, e.g. via an RfC, I think we have to assume that it doesn't, particularly based on WP:NOTINHERITED principle. In particular, I really can't see how NMUSIC #5 (a criterion which talks about a band's records being released by a major label) could possibly apply to a record label itself.  Nsk92 (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.