Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiMusicGuide
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 until after Beta testing (when it becomes more notable). Cbrown1023 00:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiMusicGuide
A site still in beta testing. I tagged the article with {{Unreferenced}} and {{Notability}} rather than adding it to AfD to see if it indeed might be notable, but I don't see the article going anywhere. The references are links to blog-like sources that don't seem to fit WP:RS, and the primary contributers are User:Ericgo and User:Ric168, who seem to have a conflict of interest. ShadowHalo 05:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Currently in Beta testing hence not yet notable for me Delete.BigHairRef | Talk 08:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unless evidence from reliable sources is provided that this meets WP:WEB. MER-C 08:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I think that since the article refers to a real-life website, that the article would be better off added to and improved than deleted. --Kevin (TALK) 18:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: fails WP:WEB. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 18:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above; no referenced assertion of notability from a reliable source. --Muchness 21:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete for now. May become notable at some point but not yet. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Being in beta does not mean not notable. Here are notable references Music 2.0, eHub, TechDigest, Glide Magazine, Wired. The site is also notable since it has been Dugg, Delicious popular and in StumbledUpon. --Biendavid 04:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
References and reference are two words with different meanings. The former plural and the latter singular. One reference though came from a blog source, but not "references" as there is only one from blog source. And that we accept that particular reference be removed. Ericgo 03:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I said "blog-like" sources since the wired.com reference has "blog" in the banner and URL, and the digg.com reference seems to have been written by an individual user, meaning it probably doesn't meet WP:RS. The wetpaint.com link says "Latest page update: made by wikimusicguide, Yesterday", hence my concern about self-promotion, and the emilychang.com link is from what appears to be a blog. I'll stop there to prevent this from getting too long, but I'm very concerned about this article not having sources that meet WP:RS and about WP:COI (see diffs: [removed with my apologies]). —ShadowHalo 05:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Not sure what's the problem with a blog entry from Wired. It's not a blog entry from an unknown source. About Digg, the point is that it has been Dugg and has been given attention and no longer an unknown site. About Music 2.0, it's the fact they creators added WikiMusicGuide to the list. WikiMusicGuide editors can edit the content if they want and not under the same restrictions as Wikipedia. eHub is a very popular tech blog site. And what about the TechDigest and Glide magazine mentions? I still see we have enough references. About COI, yes, I am an editor of WikiMusicGuide as well. However, I did not create or edit the WikiMusicGuide page. I'm here point out that the site meets your guidelines. The initial stub page was created by a regular Wikipedian. --Biendavid 06:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- That "it has been Dugg" does not mean that the source meets WP:RS. As you'll see at WP:RS, sources with editorial oversight and recognition by other reliable sources are far preferrable. The TechDigest could be a borderline reliable source since it briefly evaluatees information about the site. The Glide Magazine one does not fit the requirement at WP:WEB since it is "a brief summary of the nature of the content". The one at del.icio.us fails since it has no information about the site itself, same with StumbleUpon. I apologize for using your diffs; you're right that you didn't edit the article. I was thinking of User:Ericgo and User:Ric168 who both added similar links. —ShadowHalo 07:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Google "wiki music" or "music guide" and WikiMusicGuide is in the first page. I know Wikipedia has it's own definition of notability but it seems Google thinks WikiMusicGuide is notable using their definition. If the problem is COI, the article should be cleaned up to achieve NPOV and not be deleted. --Biendavid 06:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Not sure what's the problem with a blog entry from Wired. It's not a blog entry from an unknown source. About Digg, the point is that it has been Dugg and has been given attention and no longer an unknown site. About Music 2.0, it's the fact they creators added WikiMusicGuide to the list. WikiMusicGuide editors can edit the content if they want and not under the same restrictions as Wikipedia. eHub is a very popular tech blog site. And what about the TechDigest and Glide magazine mentions? I still see we have enough references. About COI, yes, I am an editor of WikiMusicGuide as well. However, I did not create or edit the WikiMusicGuide page. I'm here point out that the site meets your guidelines. The initial stub page was created by a regular Wikipedian. --Biendavid 06:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:WEB.--OriginalJunglist 18:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. The sources are weak, the site is brand-new, etc. 21,035 edits? 159 registered users? If this was a forum we were talking about, it would have been speedied already. --- RockMFR 19:04, 1 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.
