Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VGMix (2nd nomination)

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 NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. The Delete arguments do not win the day here -- quite. Herostratus 06:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VGMix

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

First nomination here

Looking at the old nomination, it looks like most of the "keep" arguments were based on content, rather than notability. Its Alexa ranking has actually decreased since the last nom. I saw a couple of keeps based on its supposed connection with "The Shizz" which has since been deleted. VGMix once enjoyed a hopelessly passing mention in a Salon.com article but still manages to fail the "multiple nontrivial publications" requirement of WP:WEB. One user mentioned that OCRemix would have to be removed too if this article were deleted but fails to realize that OCRemix has a bazillion publications about it and has even gained notoriety per WP:MUSIC through its music album releases. One final thing, VGMix's ability to "help less-established remixers get critiques on their work" will not be impaired by not having an article on Wikipedia (ie don't even try a WP:ILIKEIT argument). Axem Titanium 22:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Unverifiable, not notable. --Wooty Woot? contribs 01:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete site has been dead for a year, and its not coming back any time soon as clearly illustrated on the forum. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.162.14.135 (talk) 12:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Extremely megasuperweak keep. I remember that VGMix got launched with quite a bit of fanfare (I think there was a Slashdot story and Pelit mentioned it on their website) and there was at least acknowledgement at the time that "yep, this site exists". (I remember it because it was one of the first big game remix sites I had heard of, besides of c64audio.com =) ...though most of the discussions that I remember hearing at the time were along the lines of "heck, we already have OCRemix and remix.kwed.org". However, I'm not aware of any big press mentions surrounding the place... clearly, not utterly insignificant site, but Í guess it's never been Really Big either. We've probably deleted articles about more significant sites... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Can't find any sourcing to establish notability, only existence. GassyGuy 16:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Site isnt even up. Let them recreate the site, if thats really ever going to happen, and then restart this wiki. until then deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.140.176.14 (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC).
    • Comment The above user has a history of "reverting vandalism" on the OCRemix and VGMix pages, while in fact adding more. This vote should, therefore, be taken with a grain of salt. Powerlord 04:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, anonymous users' voices on AfDs are already taken with a grain of salt. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Although the site is not presently up, it is one of the more well known video game music sites after VGMusic.com and OCRemix. There is no indication that the site will be down forever. Quite the contrary, the development team today released a list of features that will be included when the site returns. -- Powerlord 03:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment, the fact that it is not currently up is not one of its reasons for deletion. The fact that it isn't notable is. Axem Titanium 03:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Please inform the two people who used that as the reason for their delete votes, not me. Powerlord 04:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, for whatever it's worth, the fact that the site is dead is not really a reason to delete an article per se - otherwise we'd fail to document many pioneer sites, most of the dot-com boom, and famous sites deemed illegal. We even have a category for these! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment I have changed my vote from Weak keep to Keep based on Axem Titanium's comment. Powerlord 18:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, as it'll be up soon and it was massively popular when previously up. Here's a Gamespy mention of it to help with notability. The editor even praises VGMix over OCR. --Zeality 16:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The Salon.com article and Gamespy's article both show its notoriety, and within the video game remixing community it is highly regarded and very well known. --Yellow Archer 19:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Still has no substantial coverage by multiple reliable sources. The Salon mention is one word, and the gaming magazine reference provided above is little better. Sandstein 07:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment There was also a brief mention (with screenshot) in an old issue of the Hyper magazine, if anybody's interested in tracking that down.--Gwilym 03:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Enough coverage/sources exist for this, it seems. Debatable whether they are "substantial" - I think they are. --- RockMFR 03:31, 14 January 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.