Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rate Your Music

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 keep. Carlosguitar 08:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rate Your Music

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

I'm back on Wikipedia after a long period away, and while I was away it occurred to me that this article may actually be about a non-notable website. It's the sort of thing I used to dogmatically assume was notable, but is it really, just because it's a popular site? No Google News results for it, and nothing that looks like a third-party reliable source mentions this website as far as I can see from a standard Google search. What do you think? h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep, for now, because it is a very popular webiste. I'm sure you'll find third party sources if you look for them. 96T 19:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    • For a start, I found this, from something called Exposure Magazine. I also saw a list from Rate Your Music once in an issue of the Norwegian news weekly Ny tid. 96T 20:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm still not totally convinced. Are all the other websites in that Exposure Magazine list notable? I doubt it. Trivial news coverage isn't substantial either. But feel free to help find sources for this.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, since it is a popular, heavily trafficked website. I mean, YTMD has a page, RateYourMusic shoud too Doc Strange 19:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm kind of torn at the moment. There's got to be sources out there for a site that's got an Alexa traffic ranking of 3,953 - it's obviously a quite popular site. But I can't see anything that classifies as a solid reliable source so at the moment, I don't think WP:WEB is really met... I'm going to watch and see if anyone else turns up sources, but if not, weak delete Tony Fox (arf!) 07:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • As the founder/owner of RYM, I can give you some journalistic references. Obviously I can't do so in the actual article due to conflict of interest, but you are welcome to check out the info below:

1) I was interviewed for the Brazilian economic journal "Jornal do Commercio" (both in print and online). The article was published on Aug 1, 2007. The online version is behind a paywall, but the text is here: http://rateyourmusic.com/wiki/S%C3%B3%20para%20quem%20gosta%20de%20m%C3%BAsica

2) RYM was briefly profiled in the "PLUG IN BABY" of Q magazine, March 2005, edition Issue 224 page 30"

'RATE YOUR MUSIC' 'What is it? A place for music lovers to rate their own record collections and chat to others with similar tastes. Best Bit? Punch in your details and the site will point you towards other albums it thinks you will like.'

3) RYM was profiled in the January 2007 issue of the Russian magazine "Play":

"Другие важные проявления "Web 2.0" Rate Your Music (http://rateyourmusic.com) Что это: в перспективе ярчайшее выражение народной воли в отношении музыки. Приходя на этот сайт, оставьте у входа опостылевшие аргументы "рецензия необъективна", "журналисты такого понапишут" и т.д. На "Rate Your Music" есть только оценки и рецензии рядовых меломанов, из которых складываются чарты и средние баллы. Плюсы: самая простая возможность упорядоточить свои пристрастия. В любой момент можно сравнить свои оценки с мнением большинства или конкретного пользователя - вам наглядно покажут, где вы совпадаете, а где нет. Минусы: в настоящий момент на сайте доминирует весьма странная группа людей, которая ставит высшие баллы исполнителям, являющимися загадкой для остального мира. Русских пользователей (а следовательно, и релизов) крайне мало. Меломанам: помимо легальной возможности утолить свою графоманию (а также листоманию), здесь можно вести учет своей музыкальной коллекции и списка желаемых приобретений. К тому же сайт является довольно серьезной энциклопедией релизов (в отличие от того же "Allmusic.com", Россия здесь хоть как-то представлена"

Play, январь 2007

4) RYM was mentioned in the "Music" section of the Russian periodical Afisha in January 2007:

Текст статьи Rate Your Music www.rateyourmusic.com Десятки тысяч пользователей со всего света пишут рецензии, выставляют оценки альбомам и добавляют пластинки в базу данных. Представительный срез слушательских мнений: если на Metacritic имеет смысл узнавать, как пресса отреагировала на новый диск Боба Дилана, то на Rate Your Music - как его творческое наследие оценивает нынешняя широкая общественность. Отдельный интерес представляют списки лучших альбомов50 последних лет (по 1000 пластинок за каждый год): примерно так сейчас выглядит история мейнстрима.

There are some other press mentions on the following page: http://rateyourmusic.com/wiki/Presskit - particularly the last three entries.

I could provide more references if necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.220.69 (talk) 08:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP Its a popular website, why shouldnt it have an article? Its my favourite music database website but thats just my opinion. Portillo 08:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Popular and well-known, even disregarding previously-mentioned press references; RYM is well-known enough to google/alexa well, with numerous references to it from blogs and the like (yes, I know they are often disregarded, but the number of them is worth noting), has been used as reference links on wikipedia, and its reviews are considered credible enough to find mention on individual bands' websites (here, for example). In the interest of full disclosure, I am a moderator and frequent contributor to RYM. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 18:28, 1 November 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.