Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Album-a-Day


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Album-a-Day
spammy, alexa rating of 375,090, limited scope, nn Giant onehead 00:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete bec. it's spam. YechielMan 01:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, tons of artists have contributed, there's hundreds of albums on there and it's even been mentioned in SPIN (http://radar.spacebar.org/img.shtml?l=1&n=23&backlink=.%3Fmonth%3D5%26year%3D2002) and Reuters (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2003-12-03-crapart_x.htm). FA010S 05:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd like to point out that these articles are over 3 years old and have no validity to help keep the article. Giant onehead 06:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The age of the articles cited is irrelevant, and the USA Today article most certainly does count towards satisfying the primary WP:WEB criterion. An article in Spin would also count, but the aforementioned hyperlink is not it.  It is a picture, published by the creator of the article's subject, of a purported Spin article.  It doesn't even have a date so that people can go to the actual magazine and find the actual article.  For all that the world knows it could be a mock-up made using Photoshop. Uncle G 10:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral Particularly low Alexa ranking, but I wonder how a reference's age can make it invalid. We use Encylopaedia britannica 1911, and that is far older. Care to explain your reasoning? Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. This may be a case of my heart ruling my head, but it seems to be a worthwhile project, and this one that should appear even though it teeters on the brink of lack of notability.  Alexa rankings are, to me as a webmaster and a FireFox user, irrelevant, fixable and so biased as to be wholly discounted until you are in the hundreds, so I pay those no heed except a wry grin.  Fiddle Faddle 10:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Conceivably NN, but it doesn't seem to fail WP:V, WP:VAIN or WP:NOR, and Wikipedia is WP:NOT paper.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 15:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The USAToday reference ensures notability, regardless of age.  Cdcon   22:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per the comments above. Yamaguchi先生 19:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. R Calvete 08:06, 24 September 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.