Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music Emissions (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   delete. The "delete" opinions are much more convincing in the light of the applicable guidelines than the "keep" opinions.  Sandstein  08:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Music Emissions
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable website. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  01:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Any particular reason this is non-notable? It seems like there has been a lot of work done on the page to increase notability. Dscanland (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I see nothing wrong with this page. It has had a lot of work put into it, so it should stay. Spyplane1 (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * reply the problem is that there is no reliable evidence to back up a position that this particular website is notable enough to have its own article in an encyclopedia. "nothing wrong with it" is not a relevant assertion. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's correct. The references on the page are, however. What is the difference between this page, and Pure Volume? What specific sources could be cited that would substantiate the notability of the page?AnotherGenericUser (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * reply "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations, except that media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site do not matter. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be by someone else who is writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that arise in material where the subject of the article itself is the source of material cited in the article.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site worthy enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Google search for "Music Emissions" brought up results in both news, and books.
 * query So? Mere Googlehits have nothing to do with notability. If there is substantial coverage of the topic in reliable sources, then add it to the article. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  00:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Of the "references" currently in that article, one is a press release by the article's subject, one is inaccessible to mere mortals (Boston.com is subscriber-only), one is just a contact list, one just leads to a music player playlist, one only makes a passing mention of the subject, and one no longer links to the stated article. I'm not seeing any evidence of real notability. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  21:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Now let's take a look at these sources, shall we?:
 * A newsletter to which artists and publications can submit promotional information. Provides verifiability, but it's certainly not independent.
 * A Boston Globe article that is only partially available and both the degree it provides in-depth coverage and its connection to cited information is not immediately clear.
 * Yahoo Finance Article mentions the publication as an example of how artists can make money online. A two-sentence description is insufficient for in-depth coverage.
 * This references doesn't support notability of the online publication as much as its alumnus editors. Also, it's the general page for Chicago Tribute featured articles and isn't specific to the writers, and the current article doesn't even mention the writers to boot.
 * This is a PR piece, and is not sufficiently independent to qualify as a source that could provide notability.
 * This source doesn't provide any evidence for what the article claims, which is about how the website worked with FuturePerfect Radio in some way.
 * In summary, the above sources don't really provide evidence that would fulfill WP:N or WP:WEB. I, Jethrobot drop me a line 18:03, 16 July 2011 (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.