Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music (3rd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  18:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable website, no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nominated twice before, and one deletion review. The DRV was because of an invalid speedy (it had already seen AfD), so this has no real bearing on anything. The first AfD isn't really valid by current WP:WEB standards, rankings have nothing to do with why we keep pages. The second was subject to canvassed keep !votes that had no basis in actual policy. "Notable in the dance community" and such. Closing admin please rate the validity of the arguments and not the number. Bottom line, while it might be popular and well-known, that isn't notability.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  ~  JohnnyMrNinja  10:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. It has too many issues. Nothing comes up on Google for it, so verifying all those unreferenced parts will be next to impossible. TopGearFreak   Talk  13:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I invoke List of electronic music genres and the linked sub-articles as a reference (checking a few of them and being familiar with the site, its descriptions are mostly OK) and would like to say that, despite not being as properly sourced as Wikipedia, Ishkur's is the single best compendium of electronic music style samples. There are tons of recommendations of the site among Google hits, and only one or two articles mentioning a few inaccuracies. MaxVT (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't quite follow. What does List of electronic music genres have to do with anything. Notability is established by reliable secondary sources, not by how accurate something is. ~  JohnnyMrNinja  06:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Referenced article on an extremely notable subject. Continual renomination on AfD will not make it less so. --Gene_poole (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof lies with those who wish to keep this article. If you would like to have this article survive this and future AfDs, simply edit the article to show that it is notable. The facts seem to show that it is not notable, and simply stating that it is referenced and notable does not make it so. Just like how Barbara Streisand insists that she is pretty - some people may believe it, but that doesn't make it true. ~  JohnnyMrNinja  06:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The default position for any WP article is keep. The burden of proof lies on those who assert non-notability/verifibility as a justification for attempted deletion - not vice versa. --Gene_poole (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you realize how silly it is to say that it should be proven that it is not notable and verifiable? How do you prove there is not a needle in a haystack? Should we assume that every haystack has a needle until proven otherwise? It can easily be shown if something is notable, if it is not shown, then it is not notable. That is how notability operates on Wikipedia. BTW, the default position is exclude (not include), which is why things like my grandmother do not have articles. Notice we have basic criteria for inclusion (Notability), not criteria for exclusion.


 * I will say that as far as reliable sources go, I don't think it's very hopeful when the only one found is a one-line mention in a book. ~  JohnnyMrNinja  22:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You are the one who nominated this article for deletion on the basis of alleged non-notability. The burden of proof therefore lies with you to justify a position which contends that even though the article subject is popular and well known in its field, even though it has been the subject of scholarly attention, even though it has been considered a serious interview subject - it is somehow not "notable". --Gene_poole (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * strong keep firstly, the onus of proof is not on the page's defenders to show how it comports to policy, but on the nominator to show how a wiki policy is violated. Specifically Notability when it comes to deletion.  It's not up to the page's defenders to prove it's a good article.  Secondly, multiple renominations are rarely, if ever, appropriate, in fact it's my personal belief that they are never appropriate, unless something happens to demonstratively change consensus.  129.89.68.62 (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * More appropriately, it is up to the article to show that it is worthy of inclusion. An article should, at any given time, contain evidence that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. This article does no such thing. Further, at the time this article was created, notability was an essay.  It makes sense that an article on a non-notable subject would survive AfD at a time when there was no guideline about notability. We no longer value Alexa rankings over cultural impact, so this article's status will be re-evaluated as well. And articles that fail to fix the problems that got them listed in the first place will be relisted over again. Unfortunately, the problem is that this topic is simply not notable. The fact of Wikipedia is this, if a subject is notable, the article proves this. If not, the article is not here. If it can't be proven, it isn't notable on Wikipedia. ~  JohnnyMrNinja  09:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Most references I find to the site are blog posts and forums, however, the sheer number of them tells me this is a very popular, and thus notable site. Just because a mainstream media hasn't picked it up doesn't mean it doesn't carry any notability; It's popularity makes it notable. And since this is it's 3rd nomination (which, I mean, really?) and nothing has degraded the article, it should be kept. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 04:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: agree with nominator. JamesBurns (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. In the absence of any reliable sources the claim of notability is not proven. Nuttah (talk) 11:01, 28 November 2008 (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.