Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MP3 Newswire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 08:06, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MP3 Newswire

I am unsure about how notable this is. It appears to be vanity. The only contributions were made by Mp3hist and a handful of anons. I believe these anons are all the same person because a number of edits make links to MP3 Newswire and to this page: 192.11.226.120: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], 69.248.83.66: [6] [7] [8], Mp3hist: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13], 68.38.80.92: [14] [15] [16]. Alexa ranking is 127,317. JJLeahy 18:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


  • Keep. My purpose for listing all of the articles by year, from 1999 on, was to create a timeline on the growth of digital media, the essays representing the perceptions of that specific time. The goal was historical, which is why all of the links go to their Archive.org page rather than the site itself (with the exeption of 2004 and 2005, which are not yet on the archive). A listing of select articles by date seemed more useful to a researcher.

I have not seen anyone else use the same type of listing technique as I employed, but then Wikipedia is still an evolving form itself and an idea used in the proper context should be evaluated on its merits. I admit, on a surface level I can see how these links can be confused with spam, but these select articles individually offer detail beyond the scope of Wikipedia and serve as subjects for further reading. The point of the layout was to offer key events and technologies in a convenient glance.

I invite Trickyt and Finlay McWalter and everyone else who wishes to vote on this to read a few of the articles from 1999, 2000, and 2001 and then ask if they think they would be useful to someone researching MP3 several years from now. My plan was to create similar listings for similar site's like P2Pnet.net, which is edited by Jon Newton, Slyck.com by Thomas Mennecke and the essays of Declan McCullagh on CNET. I am just waiting get some more energy to plow through several years of essays to pull the gems. It makes no sense to go through that effort if its going to cause problems. I think these articles are important and appropriate, but that's only my opinion and I can probably use some guidance. The description of MP3 Newswire itself is modest, only a short paragraph and a listing of a few of the contributers. -- Mp3hist | Talk 22:57 August 1, 2005

  • delete. As this seems to have been the subject of such extensive astroturfing that it's difficult to trust even that lowly Alexa number. Spam. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:11, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete. It looks like vanity to me too. Trickyt 19:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. - With Mp3hist's explanation, it seemed like this website was more important despite such a poor Alexa. I searched "MP3 News": Yahoo listed this third, Google listed it second. Also, looking into Alexa's history, MP3 Newswire has had several jumps in readership (altough they don't get much higher than 40,000). It seems like they have a legitimate claim in being a notable place for news about MP3. (If Mp3hist wants to show the history of this technology, I think that's valid, as long as it's within the history part of the article, where it will be seen by those who are going to use it.) -JJLeahy 15:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn self promotion. JamesBurns 03:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Found this, MaximumPC named MP3 Newswire one of the Most Relevant MP3 Sites Online in its August 2001 issue and Yahoo Internet Life named it one of the 50 Most Incredibly Useful Sites as the representative for the MP3 category in 2002 -- Mp3hist | Talk 22:57 August 10, 2005
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.