Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lofty Storm 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. Cirt (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lofty Storm Records

Fails WP:CORP, although it would be nice to have a more specific guideline under WP:MUSIC about record labels. Speedy declined with rationale "there are albums released on this label on the English, German and Italian Wikipedias". I see no such articles, although a split EP half-contributed to by the notable Cock and Ball Torture is mentioned in the discography sections of the band's article. The label appears to have no website (which creates WP:V problems) and Discogs.com lists a solitary album on its Lofty Storm page, with no other contact details. As you might expect from a Brazilian grindcore label, Google Books, News and Scholar turn up nothing, and even a basic Google search revealed nothing but a scant few releases in band discography pages. WP:MUSIC describes an important indie as one that's been around more than a few years, with a roster, many of which bands are notable. Lofty Storm, as far as I can see on that front have released a split EP, one have of which was contributed to by a notable band. No where near good enough, even if we assume label notability is WP:INHERITED. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment Do this search: [1]. The results are not pleasant enough to paste in here! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fair enough, I see one further article on the Polish WP for a four-way split involving Exhumed; the rest are category pages. Still no coverage whatsoever, and number of interwiki pages is not a sign of notability at any rate. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found an interview with the founder of the label, see [2]. Lechatjaune (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article needs independent sources/third-party sources per WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N. Algébrico (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~fl 05:48, 14 June 2009 (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.