Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MTV Music


 * 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. There is no consensus or even !votes to delete, and merging or leaving where it is an editorial discussion that doesn't require AfD StarM  02:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

MTV Music

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Currently seems to lack any notability, anything important could quite easily co into the other articles dedicated to MTV  —  Realist  2  21:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to MTV and expand that portion of the parent article. All they did was redesign the site and give it a unique URL off the mtv.com domain; that doesn't justify an entire article about it.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 22:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Reliably sourced, stubs are harmless. --Pwnage8 (talk) 02:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to MTV. The site has been launched barely two days ago and it is too premature to assert its notability as a standalone article. It is better to expand it under MTV before going for a separate article. LeaveSleaves talk 03:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - The service provided on MTVMusic.com is no different to Hulu or Yahoo! LAUNCHcast. So the deletion/merge argument fails completely. Plus the sheer free legal catalogue size of the service makes it notable.—IncidentFlux [ TalkBack 06:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Let it be a section in the MTV article and establish that notability over time then. MySpace Music and YouTube have received many of the same videos without having to publicize the fact beyond the usual press release.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 21:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Reliably sourced stub and as IncidentFlux says the sheer legal catalogue size makes the site notable and the service is no different from others which have seperate articles. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Please Sign my guest book!) 11:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: What inclusion / notability guideline would this come under? ie WP:MUSIC doesn't really apply here. If we know which one its a matter of yes or no. --SteelersFanUK06  ReplyOnMine!   11:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * RE: Comment: According to WP:WEBSITES the site is notable since it meets a number of their requirements. The page has had around 600,000 unique hits in the 2 days it has been online and is the 3rd result in a google search for Music MTV behind the mtv website and music subpage of the main MTV website. The site has appeared on a number of news and blogger websites such as Digg and Reddit recently too.  Cabe  6403  (Talk•Please Sign my guest book!) 11:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - This site is part of internet history, as much as YouTube and Napster. Back in 1999 MTV was against music sharing on internet, a whole campaing was thrown against music sharing, specially against Napster, including commercials inserted directly on MTV VMA. IMHO we need to preserve and expand the article. It's important to notice that it's part of a bigger context where RIAA and MPAA starts to accept that music sharing isn't a crime after all. - FabioMazzarino (talk) 07:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It's been up for two days. And it's more a desperate attempt by MTV to say they're a music network even as they haven't had a dedicated block of on air music videos in the last two months than it is about anything the record lobby wants (MPAA has absolutely nothing to do with music videos at all).  Nate  • ( chatter ) 21:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment "And it's more a desperate attempt by MTV to say they're a music network"; Unless that can be found in reliable sources, it's original research, and does not have any bearing on whether the site is notable or not. --Pwnage8 (talk) 04:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Most certainly notable. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: A couple more sites referencing it. Including Gizmodo, a major tech website:
 * Gizmodo
 * Adage
 * In my opinion this article easily meets WP:N. As numerous people have stated, similar, less popular, sites have WP articles. As such I believe that MTV Music could be Speedy Keep
 * -- Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign!) 23:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is generally not a good argument, that said, I haven't been monitoring the development of this AfD/article in recent days. —  Realist  2  23:25, 3 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.