Talk:Revealed Recordings

Please remove non-notable releases
Listing a recording studio's entire discography will quickly get too long and detract from the usefulness of the article. Less really is more.

I recommend limiting the items on this page to those which either have articles which have existed for more than a week or two and which are not up for deletion, or those which easily pass Wikipedia's notability criteria and which could have an article that would easily survive any call to delete it based on lack of notability. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  18:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The same goes for artists, except that artists who themselves are not notable but whose songs or ablums are could be listed as plain text (not a redlink) in the "signed artists" section. Those which are neither notable nor which have any notable releases should not be listed at all.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  18:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Redlink articles are clearly non existent because they are not notable enough (all be it some exceptions). But I normally just remove the links to articles that do not exist or do not need to exist. 178.16.14.191 (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I Agree, when I created this article, I think in the summer of 2013, most releases were notable. Revealed released a single once, maybe twice a month and a acceptable margin of the released reached the beatport top 10 or even national charts. However, things got out of hand. Nowadays Revealed has a release twice a week. In my opinion, about 80% of the current releases are not notable. Moreover I think most people are not interested what remixes were made from singles like Dear Life. I say, let's remove the singles that didn't reach national charts or didn't peak in the top 5 on beatport. At least we should delete the not notable singles from the table. I don't know if its relevant to put them in a apart list, I would say no. Stillnix (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Wolv isn't a headline of Revealed Recordings
According to Dannic's tweet, WOLV is not going to be a sublabel of Revealed Recordings. I removed that. https://twitter.com/DANNICdj/status/493003718619828225 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aizoon (talk • contribs) 16:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Revealed Recordings Artists
Many of the artists in the subject "Revealed Recordings Artists" haven't released anything in Revealed Recordings, like deadmau5, Calvin Harris, Zedd, Axwell & Ingrosso or Skrillex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QSTV (talk • contribs) 15:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC about how the artist list should be

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the artist list be removed entirely or should it contain only acceptable artists? I think the artists section should only consist of artists that have released at least one song with the label and should be included with a verifiable source. Currently, random users have been adding artists to the list and there are no reliable secondary sources exclusively about the artist list. The only available source about the artists is the one published by the label itself. -  The  Magnificentist 17:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Only confirmed members Don't forget: Wikipedia seeks to be informative as well as accurate, and people looking up something on line should not be saddled with clutter that they then need to pick through to exclude unverified information. Usually when it comes to such issues, I always suggest that more information is better than less provided the information comes with testable references and citations however lacking testable references for something, I always suggest that editors hold off adding proposed text until such can be provided with references. Damotclese (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep notable. If the artists on the list are either (1) mentioned in a reliable independent source as being signed to this record label, or (2) have a Wikipedia article in which there is sourced information about their connection with the label, then the information is useful and should stay. Artists who may have signed but whose signing did not attract the attention of even one independent source should be left off the list. Maybe a good way to keep track of this would be to leave an (invisible) comment in the source text next to an artist if confirmation was found in that artist's article.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Kill the Buzz" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Kill the Buzz. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 13 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)