Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DOT.TUNES


 * 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. WjBscribe 23:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

DOT.TUNES

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Speedily deleted twice by me; after the a complaint from the creator I have decided to give it a chance. Promotional of an apparently non-notable software. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 21:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment -- I just wanted to point out that the creator has sought advice through for satisfying requirements for this article and been instructed on sourcing, neutrality & notability. I haven't formed an opinion yet on the AfD because of that, but I will note I have some doubts that notability can be established. As the page is, it's obviously unacceptable. --Moonriddengirl 21:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:WEB. Maybe the author can improve the article, but I don't think notability is, or will be, met. -- B figura (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have added a ref or two and fixed the formatting. No opinion regarding the keep-worthiness of the article. - Two  Oars  22:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as references look like product placement. Article appears to be thinly disguised WP:SPAM. --Gavin Collins 12:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Page has not been edited since August 31st, so I suppose it's safe to assume that the developer has taken it as far as he or she intends. While there does seem to be some claim to notability (its sources show it has been covered in PC World and Wired (the latter is posed as a blog, but note that it is a blog created by editorial staff)) several of the references are not WP:RS for the purpose (ZDNet does not refer to DOT.TUNES; Tipmonkeys looks like a blog). We're cautioned at Notability (organizations and companies) not to create criteria that unfairly discriminate against smaller companies, which are less likely to attract major media attention but which may have equal notability (as opposed to fame) to the large companies. However, there's really no assertion in the article I can see to suggest encyclopedic inclusion is appropriate for this. --Moonriddengirl 12:38, 4 September 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.