Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All About Jazz


 * 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 as no further comments have suggested otherwise (NAC). SwisterTwister  talk  04:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

All About Jazz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet notability guidelines. My search brought up only the website itself and its social media pages, and virtually no independent sources. The only notability claim seems to be that it won a minor award for several years in a now-discontinued category; no in depth coverage outside of its own website. It has needed additional citations for many years and not gotten them. 331dot (talk) 13:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails GNG and NWEB after checking notability. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 16:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. A user claiming to be the publisher of the website has posted to the article talk page; there also seems to be a promotional element here. 331dot (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. The leading jazz website for some years now (check Alexa or whatever you like). I will grant, not heavy coverage directly of the site, but routinely referenced by reliable sources: NY Times: "(Even) Jazz Makes the Leap to Cyberspace", Horace Silver obit, João Gilberto page; LA Times: Frank Wess obit, Dakota Staton obit; Boston Globe: article on essay written by Vijay Iyer, recommended as a resource for jazz listings; Chicago Sun-Times: Paul Bley obit. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 07:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Those links seem to just be passing name-drops, without in depth coverage indicating how this website is notable. Merely mentioning its name is not sufficient. As I stated, this article has needed references for many years and not gotten them. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

–Vmavanti (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC) –Vmavanti (talk)
 * Keep. There are many other entries that deserve deletion and many other tasks more pressing than debating the deletion of this entry. It should be kept in mind that this is one of the most important jazz sites on the internet and one of the most frequently used sources for editors who work on jazz articles. Neverthless, I'll try to find some sources.
 * As I indicated, this has needed sources for years for things like "one of the most important jazz sites on the internet"; if this discussion results in sources being found, it seems well worth it to me. "Tasks more pressing" is relative and a poor argument when dealing with a volunteer project. 331dot (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, no, it isn't relative, but I don't see the point in debating. I'm not a debater. Keep, delete. It's all the same to me. I don't know anything about the process of selecting which articles get targeted for deletion, though I understand the criteria. For example, I don't know how it's possible to write about bridges in Maine one day, then the next day draw the name "All About Jazz" out of a hat and select it for deletion.
 * Like thousands of editors, I occasionallly follow the Recent Changes page and other means of identifying articles with issues. It's not that different than following the edit history of other users. 331dot (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep – In addition to the brief mentions Hobbes Goodyear notes above, there is a review which provides more in-depth coverage in Music Reference Services Quarterly 16(4). Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 01:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947  05:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * * WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 08:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: In editing and referencing articles on jazz musicians and their works over the past 11 years, AAJ has always been one of my prime sources, though only its bylined reviews (previous discussion). Though that may be an WP:ITSUSEFUL argument, it does indicate some importance in a limited field, which point is I think reflected in the repeated award referenced in the article text and the mainstream press secondary mentions itemised above. AllyD (talk) 09:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The second criterion for website notability is: "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization". AAJ has won a Jazz Journalists Association award on multiple occasions, as is stated (and sourced) in the article. That's sufficient in itself. As an aside, I'd guess that Wikipedia gets more traffic from the AAJ site than AAJ gets from having a Wikipedia article, so the argument about promotion is weak. EddieHugh (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * How well known can the award be(especially now that it is apparently discontinued)? It's a promotional conflict of interest for the publisher of the website (see talk page) to edit the page about it.  331dot (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Grammy awards, for example, have their names changed frequently and some are merged, new ones started, etc. The notability criterion isn't for still-current awards, so the fact that the one AAJ won repeatedly has been merged with another makes no difference in this discussion. How well known are the JJA awards? A quick search shows that they're covered by, e.g., JazzTimes, TheJazzLine, Stereophile, JazzFM, npr... that should be enough to answer the question. CoI: yes, but that's a separate matter. EddieHugh (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2017 (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.