User talk:Musickfan/Voltage Records

Adding references to an article isn't a game of "find the title mentioned somewhere on the internet" and insert it somewhere in the article. This doesn't help establish notability of the subject and isn't going to save an article from deletion. Citations have to make sense in the context they are used. A reference to Billboard (clearly a reliable source) was removed because the URL specified was to an album's tracklisting from Billboard's database. This was added as a reference to text about this label's distribution methods. If there is a good reference somewhere that talks about the distribution methods and how this is unique or something like that, such a reference would make an excellent citation.

Also if this company operates under multiple names, that needs to be made clear in the article and properly referenced as well. Until then, we've got to assume that any reference that doesn't refer to 'Voltage Records' or at the very least a shortened form that is very obviously talking about the same company, it has to go.--RadioFan (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Points taken, I am quite new to Wikipedia but always happy to learn. I would object to this article being deleted because there is evidence of notabilty, but some of it proved difficult to find as online references. Much of the label's coverage has been in physical music magazines and these articles do not seem to be archived on the web. Hence the addition of the Flickr page as a reference because it contains scans of several articles of magazine coverage of the work of the label. I know there was a substantial feature in Big Cheese magazine about the Voltage Records and the unique 'Gnarly Dude' albums, but again there is no archive on the magazine's website, so it would have to be represented as a scan from a back issue...if it can be found in time. Musickfan (talk) 11:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that are not available online are fine as long as they meet verifiability requirements. If time is a concern, the article can be userfied, that is moved under your user space (out of main article space) so that you may have as long as you need to add references and otherwise bring the article up to notability standards. --RadioFan (talk) 11:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'm understanding better now. I have much music knowledge to impart and 'fill in the gaps' here and there, but I obviously need to get it right. So taking record labels as an example, an exemplary roster of notable artists wouldn't in itself warrant a Wikipedia article on the label, as the association doesn't automatically make the labe notable? The artists may be notable in their own right, but the label would require references written about the company as a whole and not its constituent projects? I shall endeavour to obtain the Big Cheese Magazine article in the meantime, if the newly added references are not sufficient (Flickr scans and Leeds Music Scene article) and if does get deleted I shall of course make sure other contributions fit the guidelines better. Musickfan (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The key is to show the company as being important. A small company can still be notable if it's brought a number of artists that have been deemed "important" to their particular genre for example. Would you like this article to be userfied so you may continue work on it?--RadioFan (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the only alternative is deletion in its current state, then yes please. How do I reinstate it once I have knocked it into shape? Musickfan (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]