Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pulse Recording

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. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pulse Recording

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

Advert for company. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources, most current sources do not verify claims and none provide significant independent coverage of Pulse Recording. Notability is not inherited from clients. Current article is a textbook example of using bombardment to mask the lack of notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A third edit has been made to this article to avoid any characterization that it is an advert or a bombardment as stated by User:Duffbeerforme. Pulse Recording is not promoting or selling a product or service, and this article was drafted in accordance with other Music publisher articles including: Downtown Music Publishing and Water Music Publishing. The subject of "notability" has been further addressed with a list of awards that the company (not its clients) has been presented with over the past 3 years. It is troubling that Pulse Recording's notability has been questioned by this user, but an article from a similar company such as E1 Music Publishing is not questioned. In a second edit of this article, numerous in-line citations were made to directly connect clients to referenced works, addressing User:Duffbeerformes original concern of sources "not verifying claims." Those in-line citations have now been removed in the third edit of this article, addressing User:Duffbeerformes new claim that they were a "bombardment." I ask that a fair judgment be made, considering that an effort has been made to make this article unbiased, informative, and most importantly consistent with other American Music publisher articles. Thank you kindly (Jpoindex (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- "awards that the company (not its clients) has been presented"? Pulse thinks otherwise. ASCAP Awards – Pulse Clients Honored. Plus they are not major awards. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a perfect example of a wiki user being completely uninformed about the music industry and making judgments about the level to which an award shall be judged. It is the publishing company that is presented with these type of awards, which are attributed to a client's work. The ASCAP and Broadcast Music, Inc. awards recognize songwriters, and in the songwriting world (not the performing and selling of music world) these ARE major awards (Jpoindex (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nom that this is a clear case of bombardment intended to mask the lack of notability. The article (as of my writing this) has 14 references, but looking into them it's clear that nothing there amounts to significant coverage in reliable independent sources:

source 1 (Universalmusic.com) is a press release
2 is Google Maps
3 is the company's own site
4 (ASCAP), 5 (LA Weekly), and 6 (Rolling Stone) don't mention Pulse Recording
7 (ASCAP) confirms that a song was published by Check Your Pulse (and another company) without any coverage - it's just a list
8 (losangeles.citysearch.com) is a listing in a directory, much like the Google Maps listing;
9 (Downtown Music Publishing), 10 (Music Connection), and 11 (MV Remix) are press releases;
12 (ASCAP) is the same as 7 and 13 (ASCAP) is the same as 4
14 (BMI) doesn't mention Pulse Recording.

Even if the company represents people who have produced or written for Lady Gaga, U2, Britney, JLo, etc., as the article asserts (without sources), notability is not inherited. There's no evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, therefore notability has not been established. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A fourth edit has been made to address the concerns raised above by User:Dawn Bard (Jpoindex (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Source 1 is now an article from Variety (magazine)
Source 2 is now an article from the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce
Source 3 is now an article from Downtown Music Publishing
Source 4 (ASCAP) indicates client Paul "DJ White Shadow" Blair as a writer for Lady Gaga's "Born This Way" and The Edge of Glory"
Sources 5 (LA Weekly) and 6 (Rolling Stone) provide significant media coverage of client Bonnie McKee's relationship to Katy Perry and Taio Cruz. Source 14 shows CYP Two Publishing (i.e. Check Your Pulse Publishing) as belonging to Bonnie Mckee
Source 7 is now an article from Music Connection Magazine (story titled "Pulse Recording: Rapid Readings")
Source 8 provides record that Pulse Recording is a registered business in the city of Los Angeles
Source 9 is now an article from All Access Music
Source 12 (ASCAP) is from 2011, and indicates client Tim Pagnotta as a writer for Neon Trees's "Animal (Neon Trees song)" and that Check Your Pulse Publishing is his Music publisher
Source 13 (ASCAP) is from 2012 (i.e. not the same as Source 12) and indicates Tim Pagnotta and Check Your Pulse Publishing's second award for Neon Trees's "Animal (Neon Trees song)"
Source 14 (BMI) mentions CYP Two (i.e. Check Your Pulse Publishing) as the Music publisher for Bonnie McKee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpoindex (talk • contribs) 18:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article in Variety Magazine seems to be the only news source that talks about Pulse Recording in any detail. Some other sources talk about the subsidiary, Check Your Pulse, but not Pulse Recording. Article does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for businesses WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pulse Recording is the parent company, registered business headquarters, and trademark of Check Your Pulse Publishing. In simply trying to understand Wikipedia's notability criteria (with the hope of improving this article accordingly) have the other companies referenced E1 Music Publishing and Water Music Publishing passed the notability test? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpoindex (talk • contribs) 21:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From my quick look at those two, IMO no they haven't. I may nominate them later. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5th edit. I have made further edits to this article in the hope that a fair judgment will be made. I ask that a precedent be considered with notability criterion for all Music publishers before this article becomes a scapegoat for the industry, where client success always dictates company success. If the ultimate goal is to deter the creation of new articles, it wouldn't seem wise to have examples (i.e. E1 Music Publishing, Water Music Publishing) continue to exist for authors to be inspired by when creating new articles for similar companies. (Jpoindex (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Source 2 added from UBM plc for further news related to Pulse Recording
Management section has been removed all together to avoid the suggestion that Pulse Recording is assuming its notability
Awards section indicates more awards that Pulse Recording/Check Your Pulse Publishing was honored with at the 2012 BMI Pop Awards on May 15th, 2012

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.