Talk:Candlelight Records

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability[edit]

I'm not an expert on the history of candle light records, but I would like to point out the ridiculous ness of some of the criteria's for deletion, in wikipedia obviously need revision. This record lable, has several well established bands, in small, but not mainstream subgenre of rock music. Much of Rock, especially punk, metal, and their respective subgenre's are largeley independent, and lack notoriety outside of their respective genres, and much knowledge of this music is only held within the resective genre's audience, it doesn't mean the band hasn't had impact on music. Deletion standards need to be revised, for music articles considerabley, especially since modern music is not always well documented, because academic work on the genre's tend to be limited, and noted music magazines, largeley focus on popular music, as opposed to music as a whole. It is also absurd that articles that were voted for deletion, include bands whose first album release placed them in the Billboard charts ect. In regards to candle light records, it should be noted that, the artist produced by label, are fairly well established with in their music genre, and the genre itself is a wideley recognized subgenre of metal music and that should be enough.
I don't know where to put this but ther should be consideration for a new type of test when deleting bands, called the my space and purevolume hit count test. Since many band's who do not use radio to make record sales use these. websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.160.205 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 4 November 2006
In the case of the band Opeth they have gone on several world tours, and have a myspace hit count in the 600,000 with close to 90,000 listed friends.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.160.205 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 4 November 2006

This article needs independent sources. So far, the only source seems to be the company itself. The list of artists lately added is from the company's own U.S. and U.K. websites. Further, the list includes acts having only slight connection with this company (e.g. Candlemass has disbanded and Candlelight Records is merely involved, somehow, in distributing that band's old work, work which was not recorded nor (originally) released under the Candlelight label), and it includes a great many non-notable acts (likely including plenty of non-notable ones that nevertheless have articles in WP, considering the tendency for fan-cruft, vanity, and advertising articles in this music genre). The bands themselves, even the most notable of them, are scarcely known outside their own narrow fan-dom. The recording company seems to be even less notable than its acts. Establishment of notability needs multiple reliable sources, independent of Candlelight and of each other. -- Lonewolf BC 01:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well just say it's unreferenced then. Lots of these bands listeed here are very notable. Spearhead 19:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is an independent source with regards to a record label? Shouldn't their artist roster speak for themselves? There's always Discog's release list, if that helps. In any case, questioning the notability of Candlelight is downright ridiculous, as it is one of the most important extreme metal labels in existence. They are integral to the black metal and death metal scenes, and easily among the largest and most influential together with Nuclear Blast, Peaceville and Relapse.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Olekasper (talk • contribs) 13:31, 25 January 2007
"Independent sources" has no unusual meaning in the case of record companies. It means sources that are independent of the record company and are independent of each other. For further information, see Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) and, more generally, Wikipedia:Notability, as said in the notability-doubt tag. See also Wikipedia:Reliable source and Wikipedia:Verifiability, for the broader principles concerned.
Keep in mind that it is altogether possible for a company to be (in the Wikipedia sense) non-notable, and yet to make some WP-notable product or products -- or in this case, for a WP-non-notable record company to make records for a WP-notable band or bands. In other words, making records for a WP-notable band or bands does not, in itself, make a record-company WP-notable. (The WP-notability of the bands themselves is in many cases doubtful, anyhow.)
The notability-doubt tag, which has been in place for quite some time now, seems to have generated complaints about its placement, without any action that would justify its removal. This tends only to confirm that the company really is not WP-notable. If it is WP-notable, then don't complain about the tag, nor say the tag is "ridiculous", nor merely claim that the company is "one of the most important..." in the genre. Relative importance within a given field does not matter to WP-notability, anyhow, if for no other reason than that the field itself might not be WP-notable (although I do not suppose that such is the case with Black/Death/Extreme Metal) and mere claims of WP-notability are of no value in its proof. Instead, find some independent sources that demonstrate the company's WP-notability, and use them to build the article. If that cannot be done, then the article ought be deleted from Wikipedia. -- Lonewolf BC 21:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I assume that more or less all metal lables or other minor lables should be removed from Wikipedia. For example, what is more notable about Peaceville than Candlelight? How about Relapse? Regain? Season of Mist? Earache? Music for Nations? None of those reference some external source which praises them, nor do they reference any other types of published work regarding them. It seems to me that the notability guidelines are there to prevent companies from self-advertising, not to stop independent lables from being listed. It seems obvious to me that record lables are candidates for listing, especially those of the more underground type. It is of encyclopaedic interest to have their signed bands listed. Granted, this article is in dire need of some cleanup, but does most definitely have a place on Wikipedia. Olekasper 12:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To further the case with regards to the malapplication of Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies, I am not really sure Candlelight is a company. AFAIK it is fully owned by Abstract Sounds / Tanglade Ltd, and as such is not an economic entity as described in the notability guidelines.
You might well be right that many other "metal", "independent" and other minor record-labels with WP articles are WP-non-notable and so those articles ought be deleted. That has no bearing on whether the article on Candlelight Records ought be deleted. In other words, the presence on WP of other material that is delete-worthy on notability grounds is no excuse for keeping a given article that is likewise delete-worthy. It is well known and obvious that it is much easier to add non-notable material to WP than to get it deleted, with the result that there is rarely a shortage of delete-worthy material to point to, in attempting to argue, "Then, what about all that stuff?" in the face of a notability challenge. That argument is as valueless as it is easy to make. "Candlelight Records" must stay or go on its own merits.
I suspect that Candlelight is, in fact, a corporate entity ("company") even if it is wholly-owned by another company -- a most common circumstance in the business world. If it is not, then essentially the same notability criteria apply, nevertheless.
Again, please concentrate on demonstrating Candlelight's notability, rather than complaining about or arguing against the notability challenge.
-- Lonewolf BC 19:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The alternate solution is of course to rather make an "Artists Signed to Candlelight Records" article which "Candlelight Records" redirects to. The value of this article is the list of artists, not general information about the company itself. Olekasper 17:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Making a WP-category might be better. The list seems to be padded out with acts that are not truly signed with Candlelight. I don't know off-hand whether such a list for a non-notable company would be allowable on WP -- it seems like a way of trying to evad deletion for non-notablity. If you are concerned about the fate of this article, I suggest once again that you concentrate on demonstrating the notability of the company. -- Lonewolf BC 21:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, seeing as there are almost an hundred articles linking from within wikipedia to Candlelight, one might state the proof of notability is within the enviroment already. Also a goodle search of "Candlelight Records" generates 126 000 results, which above most thresholds for notability. It happens there isn't as much publicity about the labels themselves in the metal underground as there is mainstream music.

Additionally http://www.discogs.com/label/Candlelight+Records quite clearly shows many of the mainstays of the early black metal underground listed from Candlelight, their notability is clearly present.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.107.55 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 27 February 2007

Once again, please concentrate on demonstrating Candlelight's notability through betterment of the article, rather than complaining about or arguing against the notability challenge, here on the talk-page. Because these arguements reveal some misconceptions about how to show notability, though, I will address them:
Links within WP do not show notability. Neither do Google-counts, necessarily. They can be a rough indicator, but unless these hits contain substantial information about the subject, they are of no worth in showing its notability. (If any of them do contain such substantial information, then put that information into the article, citing its source, rather than merely chalking up google-hits.) That "many of the mainstays [etc.], is an "original research" conclusion from "discogs" page, and is not even at all clear therefrom to anyone outside of the fandom. The lack of "publicity" on this company (and others) only tends to confirm that it lacks notability. -- Lonewolf BC 19:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh...look at that roster! I hope no one's seriously worried about this label's notability anymore. Chubbles 02:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Candlelight Records. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Candlelight_Records&oldid=1205625501"