Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monstercat (2nd 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   keep. Nakon 03:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Monstercat
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has been deleted ten times for spamming, lack of notability or both. Its history shows an array of dubious practices including removal of CSD tags and editing from multiple accounts each with a handful of edits. An editor with no edits other than to my talk page has challenged my speedy, and it's two years since the last AFD so I'm bringing it here for the spam/notability to be debated. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  14:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

-*Keep - Basically agreeing with. I think semi-protection would be better worth it. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)-
 * Comment On verifiability, I personally believe that Monstercat is suitable for Wikipedia — although it may not have as recently as a year ago. Huffington Post and Billboard have written articles specifically about Monstercat, and The Verge has written one that discusses the label in more than passing (albeit the main subject is Twitch).  On "spamming"... I haven't been watching this page's history, but Monstercat does have an unusually wide (and young) fanbase for a record label, and it wouldn't surprise me if a few of their fans were just a bit too eager to get the label onto Wikipedia.  In my opinion, that doesn't warrant deleting the page — at worst, it could perhaps benefit from semi-protection until notability has been unambiguously established.  I would be very surprised if the label itself were responsible for any substantial activity on the page.  Fraxtil (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ...and I just created the talk page for the article, again. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I also just added a lot of sources to back up about half of the albums. I'm planning on adding more later tonight, so I've changed to a Strong Keep. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, and protect as needed from spammers, per arguments are above. I'm very glad this article wasn't speedy deleted, naughty IPs or not. It doesn't even look too bad as is, just needs some basic cleanup. Earflaps (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, this article has absolutely NO reason to be deleted. I don't see how it's breaking any of Wikipedia's guidelines. It might need some cleanup, but that's pretty much it. --Prism2001 (talk) 07:20, 18 February 2015 (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.