The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested proposed deletion - Only two online news articles (1 a press release ) and very little web interest. Seems to be a largely unknown music publisher, not written about extensively by reliable sources. Fails the notability criteria in the corporate notability guidelines. Peripitus (Talk) 10:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In support of Red91 Music, the company and owner have been quoted and featured in several sources that cannot be linked to. Included on their website is a transcript of an editorial for Billboard magazine (the largest and most notable music magazine in the world). Editorials are only given to those music industry figures that are deemed worthy of comment. I would hope that although the description is small, the fact that it was the first company to giveaway an album in its entirety should not be seen as anything less than ground-breaking. Many larger more popular artists have followed this route and it would be a shame to dismiss the original pioneer of what is now considered forward-thinking. History is littered with misplaced credit and an overuse of the title genius. I hope this is not to be one of those occasions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simond91 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete as non-notable. google news hits are press release, an unrelated article, and a international herald tribune article: [1], that gives some coverage, but as part of a wider article, and doesn't seem enough to establish notability on its own. The billboard article seems to barely mention red91. A google search for ""red91 music" only comes up with this article and related content, the company website, and content on linkedin. No hits on blogs, or google groups, or in books. Only hits for "Silas Casual" the ceo seem to be non-reliable sources, or press releases. Of the doubtful ones, this one [2] looked like it might be original coverage, but the bits referring to red91 seem to be taken from a press release: [3]. This one seems to be a dutch blog: [4]. I will reconsider my deletion !vote, if significant coverage in reliable sources, independent of the company, can be found. Silverfish (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be a mistake and a shame to delete Red91 as so many music companies are small and seem insignificant but can have a cult following. Anyone in the music industry knows that just because a company isn't covered by mainstream news providers doesn't mean they are not important and don't have a valuable role to play. As Simond says, being the first digital-only record company in UK is quite an achievement. This is backed up by press release dates and a bit of research of my own. I have read the Billboard article. It doesn't mention Red91 very much but the article is not written about the record company, it is the views of the owner/founder. To be given this opportunity to host a Billboard editorial, the writer must have a very credible background. That endorsement in itself should be enough to warrant a place on Wikipedia. Surely Wikipedia's role is not just to champion the mainstream? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomisnosyd (talk • contribs) 07:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is Silas Casual, the owner and founder of Red1 Music commenting on the eligibility of Red91 Music to stay on Wikipedia. Firstly, I should say that our business will continue to function with or without the inclusion of six or seven lines briefly describing what we do. However, my attention was drawn to this discussion by a colleague that uses Wikipedia several times each day. It is probably worth pointing out to the kind people that are acting as judge and jury that the music industry is written about extensively in both published and subscribed-to magazines and newsletters. I am hoping that those deciding our fate will not make the mistake in thinking that because a link to a source cannot be established, it is any less important. I do not need to visit the moon to know there is no air present - some things can correctly be assumed.
With regards to having a "cult" status, the definition of the word means to attract a small group of devotees. Wikipedia puts it better than me ("Cult" typically refers to a cohesive social group devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding population considers to be outside the mainstream). Plenty of mainstream coverage could result in the loss of the cult tag and anyone involved in the entertainment industry will tell you how difficult that can be to reacquire. Many artists have gone from cult to popular but none have made it back.
Being "important" or "valuable" is difficult to quantify. I have provided links to music media such as Music & Copyright and MusicAlly (both considered eminent publications written by often-quoted journalists). However, as a subscription is required to read these newsletters, no access is allowed to the general public and our cult status remains intact. I can assure you that we have been a feature of both for our innovative approach to what is now a very challenging industry.
Addressing the "notable" issue - pioneers often do not received the credit they deserve. History is littered with wrongful accreditation for inventions that have changed the world. Wikipedia has many such examples that are too numerous to mention. But make no mistake how important our album giveaway and our position as the first digital-only record company is. No other artist had provided an album for free before we did. Our business model has now been adopted by the big and small and is written about on an almost daily basis. It would be wrong to expect Red91 to be cited every time another artist provides free access to their content, as championing a competitor when marketing a release would be suicide. But the coverage now afforded to this sort of approach should stand in our favor as we were the first. That should count for something.
If, as I fear, we are deleted then so be it. It will be a shame that Wikipedia has missed out on our company and an opportunity to innovate. You put it best yourself when you say "the term innovation may refer to both radical and incremental changes in thinking, in things, in processes or in services (Mckeown, 2008). Invention that gets out in to the world is innovation. In many fields, something new must be substantially different to be innovative, not an insignificant change." —Preceding unsigned comment added by SilasC (talk • contribs) 14:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although the four issues that Samuel has identified have already been addressed, I shall try to answer them again as clearly as possible. It is probably worth pointing out that to succeed in the music business you need foresight. One must take a chance that your opinion will be shared by others and an artist you have backed will prove successful. Perhaps I am wrongly assuming that reviewers such as Samuel also share my foresight, hence the wait and see approach. I would much rather be on the ship before it sails rather than stand on the shore and wave it goodbye. (1) Cult status - it is open to opinion whether or not something has cult status. There are many instances where an artist or music company has achieved cult status and have not graced the covers of mainstream magazines. All I can say to this is that there are many more worlds turning than the ones you read about in the mainstream media. He who dares.... (2) Anyone involved in the music industry would agree that being the first digital music company is a notable achievement. In five years or so the majority of music sales will be in digital format. Only we can say we were the first to embrace fully the digital movement in the UK. But again, if standing on the shore waving to a ship that has sailed is your take then there's not much more I can say. (3) Does one incident make something notable? Yes it does. The world knows Neil Armstrong only as the first man on the moon, even though he has had a life full of other achievements. In the UK OJ Simpson is not known as a ball player, but the star defendant in a famous murder case. I could go on listing examples but I think these two answer your question. (4) Wikipedia does not have an obligation to aid the process of innovation. It is much more than that. In its own words - "Wikipedia attempts to collect and summarize all human knowledge in every major language". How sad it would be if the likes of Samuel are left to determine what is included or deleted from the world's greatest encyclopedia. Perhaps 683 million annual visits suggests there is a world wanting to board the ship in the harbor and wave the likes of Samuel goodbye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SilasC (talk • contribs) 08:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]