333:, 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) 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 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.
356:. 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.—
397:. 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
375:, 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.
481:, 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.
283:
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.
279:- 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.
210:
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.
501:
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
179:
548:; 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
173:
132:
262:
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.
245:
228:
105:
100:
139:
109:
92:
509:). This combined with the ton of sources that mention a number of other artists besides Hardwell is sufficient for inclusion. Btw, per
194:
161:
488:
17:
280:
67:
627:
is a notable person, this article should either be kept, or at a minimum, merged with its founder, but NOT deleted. --
417:
155:
574:
306:
661:
636:
615:
590:
565:
534:
491:
422:
384:
365:
342:
321:
297:
271:
254:
237:
220:
74:
680:
655:
609:
40:
151:
96:
201:
676:
361:
317:
293:
250:
233:
36:
401:
below, but hope those with expertise far exceeding my own (wouldn't take much) will participate here.
505:(mentions 5 year anniversary and its great support for NL artists as well as label-specific events at
561:
452:
553:
485:
376:
349:
334:
285:
263:
187:
88:
80:
632:
587:
380:
338:
267:
167:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
675:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
503:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
506:
390:
372:
357:
330:
289:
61:
557:
549:
528:
463:
413:
394:
216:
482:
628:
584:
510:
353:
478:
126:
55:
523:
402:
398:
212:
352:, it seems that if the article is to be kept, it will be because it passes
624:
545:
646:- I think merging would take up a lot of space on Hardwell's article. -
453:
http://www.bptoptracker.com/label/revealed-recordings/15201/tracks
669:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
513:
deletion is not a valid option anyway, since the content can be
577:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
309:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
477:
Unable to find any significant, independent coverage in
464:
http://www.bptoptracker.com/bestof/2014/tracks/top100/0
122:
118:
114:
583:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
186:
600:- Notable record label. Article can be improved. -
315:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
288:, why do you say that the label used to be major?—
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
683:). No further edits should be made to this page.
246:list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions
200:
8:
244:Note: This debate has been included in the
227:Note: This debate has been included in the
243:
229:list of Music-related deletion discussions
226:
445:
7:
24:
521:ed to Hardwell's entry. Regards
393:was trying to point out is that
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
662:09:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
637:18:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
616:16:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
591:18:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
566:03:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
535:18:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
492:22:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
423:14:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
385:16:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
366:17:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
343:12:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
322:06:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
298:03:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
281:Knowledge:Notability (music)
75:04:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
395:notability is not temporary
272:08:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
255:17:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
238:17:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
221:12:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
700:
556:look bulky in comparison.
672:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
554:Revealed Recordings
89:Revealed Recordings
81:Revealed Recordings
593:
324:
257:
240:
73:
691:
674:
660:
658:
653:
652:
614:
612:
607:
606:
582:
580:
578:
531:
526:
517:d / the article
507:Miami Music Week
466:
461:
455:
450:
409:
408:
320:
314:
312:
310:
253:
236:
205:
204:
190:
142:
130:
112:
70:
64:
53:
34:
699:
698:
694:
693:
692:
690:
689:
688:
687:
681:deletion review
670:
656:
654:
648:
647:
610:
608:
602:
601:
594:
573:
571:
550:Hardwell On Air
529:
524:
471:
470:
469:
462:
458:
451:
447:
421:
404:
403:
325:
316:
305:
303:
249:
232:
147:
138:
103:
87:
84:
68:
62:
58:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
697:
695:
686:
685:
665:
664:
657:Magnificentist
640:
639:
621:Keep or merge
618:
611:Magnificentist
581:
570:
569:
568:
552:, which makes
538:
537:
495:
494:
468:
467:
456:
444:
443:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
411:
313:
302:
301:
300:
274:
259:
258:
241:
208:
207:
144:
83:
78:
56:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
696:
684:
682:
678:
673:
667:
666:
663:
659:
651:
645:
642:
641:
638:
634:
630:
626:
622:
619:
617:
613:
605:
599:
596:
595:
592:
589:
586:
579:
576:
567:
563:
559:
555:
551:
547:
543:
540:
539:
536:
533:
532:
527:
520:
516:
512:
508:
504:
500:
497:
496:
493:
490:
487:
484:
480:
476:
473:
472:
465:
460:
457:
454:
449:
446:
442:
424:
419:
415:
410:
407:
400:
396:
392:
389:I think what
388:
387:
386:
382:
378:
374:
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
363:
359:
355:
351:
348:
347:
346:
345:
344:
340:
336:
332:
329:
328:
327:
326:
323:
319:
318:North America
311:
308:
299:
295:
291:
287:
282:
278:
275:
273:
269:
265:
261:
260:
256:
252:
251:North America
247:
242:
239:
235:
234:North America
230:
225:
224:
223:
222:
218:
214:
203:
199:
196:
193:
189:
185:
181:
178:
175:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
153:
150:
149:Find sources:
145:
141:
137:
134:
128:
124:
120:
116:
111:
107:
102:
98:
94:
90:
86:
85:
82:
79:
77:
76:
71:
65:
59:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
671:
668:
649:
643:
620:
603:
597:
572:
541:
522:
518:
514:
498:
474:
459:
448:
440:
405:
304:
276:
209:
197:
191:
183:
176:
170:
164:
158:
148:
135:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
418:revolutions
391:Anne Delong
373:Anne Delong
358:Anne Delong
331:Anne Delong
290:Anne Delong
174:free images
558:Matt Deres
441:References
63:have a cup
677:talk page
499:Weak Keep
489:(contrib)
483:Eggishorn
37:talk page
679:or in a
629:Jax 0677
625:Hardwell
623:- Since
585:RoySmith
575:Relisted
546:Hardwell
519:redirect
377:Stillnix
350:Stillnix
335:Stillnix
307:Relisted
286:Stillnix
264:Stillnix
133:View log
39:or in a
644:Comment
414:spin me
277:Comment
180:WP refs
168:scholar
106:protect
101:history
588:(talk)
511:WP:ATD
486:(talk)
475:Delete
354:WP:GNG
152:Google
110:delete
57:Coffee
542:Merge
515:merge
479:WP:RS
406:78.26
399:SoWhy
213:Karst
195:JSTOR
156:books
140:Stats
127:views
119:watch
115:links
69:beans
16:<
633:talk
598:Keep
562:talk
381:talk
362:talk
339:talk
294:talk
268:talk
217:talk
188:FENS
162:news
123:logs
97:talk
93:edit
650:The
604:The
544:to
530:Why
202:TWL
131:– (
72://
66://
60://
52:.
635:)
564:)
525:So
416:/
383:)
364:)
341:)
296:)
270:)
248:.
231:.
219:)
182:)
125:|
121:|
117:|
113:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
54:—
631:(
560:(
420:)
412:(
379:(
360:(
337:(
292:(
266:(
215:(
206:)
198:·
192:·
184:·
177:·
171:·
165:·
159:·
154:(
146:(
143:)
136:·
129:)
91:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.