Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music Emissions

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Music Emissions

Music Emissions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Nonnotable music review website. Alexa ranking below 143,000. Contested speedy. NawlinWiki 13:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB. Walton monarchist89 19:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please let me know what you need in order to keep this listing. Music Emissions is not "nonnotable". It is, in fact, quite notable with 42000 visitors last month. What do you consider, "nonnotable"? -- Dscanland 04:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• I've added many links of reposted reviews that bands use in their bios and press pages. Please consider this as being notable. Most of these "underground" bands thrive on reviews from sites such as Music Emissions to try and sell themselves to larger labels and such. -- Dscanland 20:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• That bands themselves use the reviews as a way to promote themselves means bupkis. Just ask David Manning of The Ridgefield Press. --Calton | Talk 00:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia is not advertizing. 75.18.220.182 08:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The article's content says very little about the actual site and a lot about how great their method is. Moreover, the opening is copypasted from here[1]. Tiakalla 04:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Spam about the distinctly non-notable. --Calton | Talk 05:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• It's the contrary on the copy-and-paste thing. That was taken from the Music Emissions Wikipedia page that that person created. We weren't aware there were so many guidelines to being included in the greatest online encyclopedia. Now we are aware and trying to comply.

• As for "advertizing", I don't think there is really much of a difference between Music Emissions write up and Purevolume's. Let me know if we are going at it the wrong way. We can work at rewriting the article to be included. Thanks, Dscanland 22:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• WP:COI, WP:WEB, and WP:INN (for your Purevolume reference above) are good places to start. --Calton | Talk 00:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

All right, I stand corrected on the copypaste. The tone is much more suited to an article than an encyclopedia though. Tiakalla 07:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.