Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OurStage


 * 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. Kevin (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

OurStage

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Advertising —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete A7 - this article about web content does not assert its notability. Failing that, I'd argue that the site isn't notable and the article isn't supported by the reliable independent sources required by the general notability guidelines. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Added many more citations, and updated old information, on November 2, 2009. Many of the citations added make a case for the OurStage article having the required sources for the general notability guidelines. In addition, removed language involved with the Advertising tone when written.  More improvements upon the "advertising" tone should and will be made. - munson3210  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Munson3210 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment - I have reviewed the changes added by Munson3210 above, and still vote Delete. The issue is, as before, that the article does not indicate why its subject is important and significant.  This is a different standard from verifiability and lower than notability.  Currently there is no information in the article to indicate why OurStage is more notable and significant than any other business or commercial website in the world. (See WP:MILL.)) - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, but not speedy. Shows a hint of notability through the articles, but most are primary sources from the website. Needs more #rd party sources to be kept.  Not a bad article however.   TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 21:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed references linking to internal sources, update with external reference links
 * 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.