Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lala (website)


 * 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 Non-admin closure. TonyBallioni 01:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Lala (website)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable website, no independent sources, no claims of notability Corvus cornix 19:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The article cites, which I find a reliable source, as well as , which I don't want to pay to check out. Even if the Enquirer story doesn't establish notability, I found and  after googling. — Ksero 20:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources found by Ksero. -- Whpq 16:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment has this site caused major legal issues, like Napster.com? If not, what makes this website notable?  What distinguishes this from an advertisement or a "search wikipedia for websites on where to get music"-article?  Mindraker 10:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply - The site has the potential to induce copyright violations (and I suspect many users of the site are doing exactly that). In any case, they meet notability through coverage by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject.  The Wall Street Journal, and Forbes both have articles specifically about the company. -- Whpq 11:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply - Unfortunately, the "potential" argument doesn't work, due to WP:CRYSTAL (it "might" happen in the future...) If it -is- notable due to past or current media coverage, then you need to cite these sources.  My vote:   Weak keep, improve by citing sources in the media Mindraker 12:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)  Keep, I cited some of the sources that Ksero had found.  Mindraker 12:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply The same could be said of most web-site, and most for-profit business in general. What makes Amazon.com, or Facebook, etc., noteworthy?  OK, those may be bigger, but this one is big enough to have Google use it a special category in search results, etc.  This is useful because its precisely not an advertisement, and, hopefully, if a controversy did come up, it would be here, so that in itself is useful information.  Its also useful for those who want to know if its a legitimate, established company -- and though there own people could edit the page, hopefully it would be caught and re-edited by someone else, or cited for bias -- in short, its good to have info that is, hopefully, not all from the cite owners or PR people, even if its not perfect. --Jared (talk) 04:57, 12 December 2009 (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.


 * Keep useful information. --Jared (talk) 04:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)