Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cokemachineglow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. In terms of WP:WEB, this is a borderline case, I guess, as it's got one minor mainstream media mention and (at least some) content is carried (or just summarised and linked to?) by Metacritic. However, the preponderance of opinion here calls for deletion even after the Metacritic connection was brought up. This deletion is not prejudicial against a recreation in a form that clearly establishes new elements of notability per WP:WEB. Sandstein 07:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cokemachineglow

Cokemachineglow (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This was originally listed for speedy, but since I've actually heard of it and read it myself on occasion I'm not prepared to accept that assessment without a second opinion. But at the same time, I'm not wholly convinced that my familiarity with it automatically proves notability, either. Procedural nom, so no vote from me; I'd rather put it to discussion since it's of at least borderline notability. (Update: I'd also like to note that there were already a large number of links from album articles citing Cokemachineglow reviews months before this article was created.) Bearcat 00:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Fails WP:WEB; not notable. Hello32020 01:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Webcruft, fails notability. Sr13 01:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No notability outside of a webzine. Denni talk 01:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 03:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Cokemachineglow is very frequently cited as an authoritative source for reviews on Wikipedia with no link referencing it back to the site, as was noted above. While most of the albums this site is cited are not of a mainstream bent (Cf. Oneida's Happy New Year (album), or Shut Up I Am Dreaming), the site is elsewhere cited without linking to the Wikipedia page. I'm not sure how why Tiny Mix Tapes' article, for example, would be worth keeping, while CMG wouldn't. If one could convince me of good reasons for TMT being saved, but this one being deleted, I'd have no problem with such an end result. However, I don't work for CMG, nor am I at all involved with it, aside from reading it once a week. This article, though, is absolutely NOT spam, despite someone's speculation as to such. It's used by Metacritic as an authoritative source for reviews whenever a review is featured on the site. I'm checking on the issue of notability and will get back to y'all tomorrow. Edit(again): Article which has a paragraph about CMG. Edit (once more): I e-mailed Scott, the webmaster, and he said that there should be an article in Wired next month, as it should have been in print already, but was pushed back. It might be worth waiting for the next issue to come out before deciding finally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeichman (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Pitchforkmedia it's not, but more than a buzz blog and a frequently featured reviewer at Metacritic. [1] ~ trialsanderrors 08:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per trialsanderrors' reasoning. - Mgm|(talk) 09:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable enough from an encyclopaedic standpoint. Thethinredline 12:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per trialsanderrors. --Howrealisreal 15:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per trialsanderrors. Inclusion on Metacritic demonstrates notability. It's grown from one of the earliest MP3 blogs to a fully staffed webzine. --Dhartung | Talk 18:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:WEB --Kungfu Adam (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Do note WP:WEB criterion 3, "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." The Metacritic use of their reviews in its aggregator surely qualifies. --Dhartung | Talk 23:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:WEB, sourced at metacritic does not satisfy the criterion established. Eusebeus 00:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. On balance, not yet notable enough. WMMartin 15:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - how is this even hard to grasp? Completely fails WP:WEB , not notable, a blog (the very soul of a reliable source) and arguments comparing this to (insert other small music site here) not only miss the point of WP:INN but give me more things to delete.--ElaragirlTalk|Count 22:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Sharkface217 03:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - no reliable sources, no assertion of notability, no article. Moreschi 14:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Elaragirl. Metacritic ? Underwhelming. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:17, 2 December 2006 (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.