Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DiscoStudio.com


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

DiscoStudio.com

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete No evidence of notability. Of the references cited, two are links to pages which do not mention DiscoStudio, one is a forum post, and the other makes one very brief mention of DiscoStudio. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as being advertisement without notable encyclopedic content, appears to be WP:ARTSPAM. Zhernovoi (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This page has been written as a factual representation of a british company who has shaped helped to shape the business world in their small (niche) industry. I have defended the above points as follows:
 * 1) (No evidence of notability): User JamesBWatson has claimed that there is (No evidence of notability). I have provided two relevant sources of reference. However, I am struggling to find others and this is because: Being a small and niche industry there is very little press coverage on the internet as most industry news and magazine sources are in printed format. All magazines relared to the DJ industry do not publish their articles (or awards etc.) online and this means there are little sources for reference available. Technicalspartacus (talk) 09:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) WP:ARTSPAM: User Zhernovoi has claimed that the article appears to be WP:ARTSPAM (Advertising Spam). Wikipedia expalins advertising spam as follows: "Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website. However, a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities." Reply: This article is written as a factual article and is not written with sales-oriented language whatsoever. In addition, it has one external link to a commercial website which is incidently the official website of the subject in question. If the user Zhernovoi believes that this is written as an advertisement, maybe Zhernovoi would be so kind as to help re-write the part that he believes is of an advertisement nature? Technicalspartacus (talk) 09:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Dream Focus suggests that the article looks like an advertisement. However the point above covers this and again, I would like to invite Dream Focus to help imporve the article article and re-write the part that they believe it of an advertisement nature. In addition, they suggest that the references are questionable. I have also explained reasons for the lack of citation references in point 1 above.

Delete It looks like an advertisement to me. No news hits anywhere. The references are somewhere confirming that half of the houses in UK had internet access, a magazine created by this company to promote itself apparently, a post someone made on a forum, and a personal webpage where someone mentions that you can get that item at DiscoStudio.com. And you said "keep" twice, which isn't allowed. You don't state that every time you respond to something.  D r e a m Focus  09:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe Dream Focus's Delete should be disregarded as it is simply an agreement 'with the consensus that has already been formed' as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD guidelines. Technicalspartacus (talk) 10:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD does not suggest that an argument should be disregarded if it agrees with a consensus already formed. It merely says that if a consensus has already been formed then one may possibly choose not to bother adding another comment agreeing with it. Also, I wonder whether Technicalspartacus understands what a consensus to delete means. He/she is arguing for a keep, which indicates that he/she does not accept such a consensus. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No I do not believe a consensus to delete has been formed. My point was that Dream Focus is itterating a point already made and to this avail should be discounted. My apologies, I correct myself, I used the wrong word. Where I used the word disregarded above should have been discounted. Technicalspartacus (talk) 11:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The reference to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD is being misused as well, as WP:CONS in case of AfD has to be seen as a delete or keep agreement between the editors participating in the AfD discussion and not as a no-go for representing a similar opinion. User:Dream Focus added value to the previous statements by questioning the reliability of provided references so there is absolutely no reason to discount the point he made. Zhernovoi (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Technicalspartacus, you can agree with someone else's deletion rationale without having your !vote discounted. It's actually quite common.  Just because someone has a valid rationale for keeping/deleting an article doesn't mean that I have to try to come up with a different rationale in order to submit my opinion.  If someone has a valid rationale, and many people agree with it, then that is what we like to call consensus.    talk 17:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Strong Keep Strong keep because this company is the pinacle of the DJ industry and is highly notable! - If DiscoStudio.com isn't notable I don't know what is!
 * Delete No reliable sources provided or found with significant coverage of the subject. If, as you asserted above, "most industry news and magazine sources are in printed format" then provide them. References don't have to be online to be valid, so long as they are reliable sources. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable run-of-the-mill internet shopping website. Fails WP:GNG.  Wikipedia is not for advertising your website.    talk 17:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I disagree that this article is written as an advertisement. It looks pretty Wikipedia friendly to me. It might not cite many references (due to the lack of such references according to the user above) but it is written as a pretty factual article like any other Wikipedia article. Also it clearly represents a company of significant interest, particularly in their specific niche. Iceomnia (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence that WP:GNG are met. Nuttah (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:ARTSPAM - (Advertising) Two users above have said that they believe the article is written like an advertisement and have given this as their reason for their vote to Delete the article. Technicalspartacus has openly invited both users to update the article and re-write the part that they feel is of an advertising nature.  Since no-one seems to have taken Technicalspartacus up on this invitation, I therefore presume that such users are withdrawing their nomination to Delete.
 * 2) Fails WP:GNG - Non-notable This point has been iterated above by a couple of users. Technicalspartacus has said that most of the sources are not available online. I agree; as this is an industry I know well as a musician. In-turn, another user has said that offline sources can also be provided; I agree and on this point and the author has quite openly said on the article's Talk page that they will continue to look for references and update the article appropriately. This shows the author's commitment to the article.
 * 3) Finally I do not presume to suggest that the above users know nothing about the subject. However,  users of Wikipedia are encouraged to participate in subjects of which they have an active interest or some kind of knowledge and/or expertise. DiscoStudio.com is the most well known website in the DJ industry by far! I understand that the DJ equipment industry is a small industry (and to some an insignificant), however DiscoStudio.com is without a doubt the most notable website in the DJ equipment industry.  HenryHayes (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2010 (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.