Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grooveshark


 * 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. Proto :: ►  14:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Grooveshark

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. No stance Cbrown1023 02:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep - There seems to be several news articles about this thing, whatever the hell it is. .V. (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Total failure of WP:WEB. Since grokster there have been thousands of startup music-sharing sites. This looks like an attempt at one more, started by some college students, not even up and running yet. There seem to be a lot of copies of their press release, but I don't find any significant news coverage. Only non-press release citation is a college paper. Fan-1967 14:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete speculative, plus of the claims of DRM-free are true it will not last five minutes. Guy (Help!) 16:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  Nish kid 64  14:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Guy. The Intertubes are cluttered with exsiting P2P applications that are not notable, I don't see how one that hasn't started yet could clear the bar. Flakeloaf 16:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete, not notable and speculative. created by a single purpose account, Special:Contributions/Meaganp, and is using Wikipedia as part of its launch media campaign. John Vandenberg 19:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - The article doesn't have much of anything to it, but it definitely meets the notability standards, including independent articles from the top digital music blog on the Internet as well as the largest student-run newspaper in the United States. I think this is more of a matter of this article needing some serious revamping than a deletion. Endotw3 08:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Question which is the "top digital music blog on the Internet"? can you provide sources for that? John Vandenberg 09:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Answer Sure thing: 1) check Google search; it is quite literally the "top" digital music blog, and just a query for "digital music" puts them in the top result. 2) the Alexa rank for the site is quite high, and its Alexa details also reveal that the Digital Music Blog receives the highest portion out of every one of the blogs on Weblogsinc.com.  I have no idea how it ranks in terms of its ratings among the related blogs (it would be hard to gauge anyway :-) ), but it definitely surpasses all the others in terms of traffic. 70.171.7.246 09:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The Alexa score for all of Weblogs, Inc. is 9,596, and according to Alexa, 11% of visitors go to the sub-domain http://digitalmusic.weblogsinc.com.   And yet there is very little independent media coverage of this blog; certainly no acclaim for having become the top digital music blog.  Netscape.com feature a number of articles from the blog, however they are all posted by one person who primarily submits stories appearing on the blog ; i.e. a "SPA".  One blog post  has been covered by Wired and the inquirer.  Another Wired article. It turns up as a "Related Blogs" on this NY Times article. John Vandenberg 22:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The simple fact that blogs may routinely carry posts from SPA's is why they do not qualify, under Wikipedia standards, as Reliable Sources. -- Fan-1967 14:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It should also be noted that since the time this entry was put in the AFD, this service has received coverage from Wired Blogs, Torrent Freak, Zero Paid, a front-page Digg article, and others. Endotw3 19:11, 24 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.