Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revealed Recordings

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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revealed Recordings

Revealed Recordings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Label that is associated with the Dutch DJ Hardwell. Notability is not inherited however and the two charting singles on the label are by him. Lacks sources and the list of artists largely refers to collaborations with Hardwell. Karst (talk) 12:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• What started as one of the major dance labels in the world in 2013 has become a minor dance label that Hardwell uses to promote talent. I think deletion is the best option. Stillnix (talk) 08:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Promoting talent is what record labels do, so that's not a reason to delete. When I do a Google news search, I see plenty of items about this label, but I can't tell which if any are editorially controlled independent sources. Wikipedia:Notability (music) doesn't cover labels, which are either companies and brands, so I'm not sure charting is the criteria. Note that the article says that its "parent" is Cloud 9 Music, but there is no article about Cloud 9. Many of the articles about artists listed on the page don't mention Revealed Recordings. Stillnix, why do you say that the label used to be major?—Anne Delong (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Delong, Promoting talent is indeed what labels do, what i meant is that revealed nowadays releases lots of music of artist that are yet not very widely known (with the exception of Hardwell of course). Your argument that the notability of a record label correlates with its brand value, is valid. However, it's hard for me to determine Revealed's brand value. What I see on google news is, that the label is mostly mentioned on (independent) EDM-related sites. This is fine, but doesn't prove to me that the brand is strong enough for a wikipedia page. If someone else can prove this, it's end of discussion of course. For me, the notability of a music label also strongly correlates with the released music. In 2016, out of 68 releases, only 5 tracks have charted in the beatport top 10 (selling platform for EDM tracks)^[1] and only 1 has charted on national charts (Hardwell - Thinking About You). In 2013, 21 out of 34 releases reached the top 10 in the beatport top 100 and 5 entered a national chart. Revealed dropped from being the label with the second most points in the beatport top 100 in 2014 ^[2] to #9 in 2016. This indicates that the notability of the label has decreased significally in comparison with 2013 and 2014. Furthermore, major artists on the label Dyro (#27 DJmag top 100 2014) and Dannic (#30 DJmag top 100 2014) have started their own label independent from Revealed (Wolv and Fonk respectively), making Hardwell the only DJ in the DJmag top 100 that is signed to the label. Finally, Revealed is indeed a sublabel of Cloud 9 (Dutch music label). In conclusion, I highly doubt it that Revealed Recordings is relevent enough for a wikipedia page. Stillnix (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG. This depends on multiple reliable independent sources writing about the subject. If you indicate which ones these are, it will help others (like me) to judge and !vote to keep or delete. About declining prominence: it's not only a company or brand's current activities that determine whether there is an article. Plenty of well-known organizations are no longer even in existence, but we don't delete the articles about them because they later declined. If you don't believe that the 2013 releases and chart performance warrant an article, is that because they were mainly related to Hardwell himself? If so, maybe the information about Revealed should be summarized in Hartwell's article and the Reveled article redirected there. Otherwise, I'm not sure why you point are both advocating deletion and pointing out notable activities from a few years ago.—Anne Delong (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Anne Delong, To begin with, it's just a point of view that the article is not relevant enough (anymore). You bring up a lot of good reasons why it still is and who am I to not adjust my opinion if they make sense. Above all, I am no expert in wikipedia deletion policies. I am 100% sure that the label was relevant in 2013, not only because of Hardwell, but also because of other artists and tracks that were popular. However, I think that the article in its current form doesn't reflect this in any way.Stillnix (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think what

notability is not temporary. If this was once one of the major dance labels in the world, then its current meager state is irrelevant. If it can be demonstrated through reliable sources that it was once one of the major dance labels, then I would vote to keep the article as on a topic of significant cultural relevance, however I'm not familiar with the genre, and like others don't feel qualified to judge the journalistic integrity of the several sources that might be used. If I were forced to make a choice, I'm inclined to !vote keep per SoWhy below, but hope those with expertise far exceeding my own (wouldn't take much) will participate here. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Unable to find any significant, independent coverage in
  WP:RS, and doesn't appear to qualify as a company under any SNG. Only significant mentions are in articles about founder's music being released on his label. Appears to be a vanity label more than anything else. New artist development efforts, to whatever extent they exist, are not generating significant coverage. Only reference I found was to a couple of remix contests of Hardwell's music. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Weak Keep While most sources seem to be limited to mention new albums being released under this label (and there are more than 1,800+ GNews-hits to choose from), there are some sources that actually mention the label itself, such as [1] (mentions 5 year anniversary and its great support for NL artists as well as label-specific events at
  WP:ATD deletion is not a valid option anyway, since the content can be merged / the article redirected to Hardwell's entry. Regards SoWhy 18:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Merge to Hardwell; it really doesn't seem like there's enough material to justify a separate article given that this one can be summarized in a paragraph. Honestly, the same should be done with Hardwell On Air, which makes Revealed Recordings look bulky in comparison. Matt Deres (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notable record label. Article can be improved. - TheMagnificentist 16:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge - Since Hardwell is a notable person, this article should either be kept, or at a minimum, merged with its founder, but NOT deleted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think merging would take up a lot of space on Hardwell's article. - TheMagnificentist 09:07, 4 February 2017 (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.