Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Passionato


 * 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. Non-notable company, especially one launched only a scant two days ago... seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  00:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Passionato

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

nn website Mow3212 (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   — Cliff smith  talk  19:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Brand new companty, obvious spam. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, fails WP:WEB.  Corvus cornix  talk  03:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per the article: "...launched on 11 September 2008..." G11 if anyone is feeling bold. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete if the site gets popular then the article can be recreated, at the moment it has no notability - Dumelow (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No opinion I created this page, after some thought, because it was of personal interest. My argument for notability would be based on the extensive news coverage. Many news sites covered the launch as well as the BBC story cited. Obviously such coverage could be transitory and the whole thing may fold up. I also think it is notable as one of the few sites dedicated exclusively to the download of classical music. The other thing I checked was wikipedia coverage of music downoad sites - there are quite a few here, and even a comparison page that I intended to update with data from this site (once I could actually log on to it after launch day problems). But,, I'm not too personally concerned either way. I'm prepared to bet, however, that it will need to be re-created fairly soon. On another note, there's no notice of this afd on my talk page which is discourteous per WP:PROD. I also object to the "obvious spam" accusation. Even a brand new companty (sic) can be WP:WEB and I would hope that my edit record shows I'm not here to spam. Mcewan (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just one other thing. The user that added the AfD tag User:Mow3212 has an edit history that spans, as I write, about 11 minutes (13 September 2008, 03:58 to 04:09). The AfD for this page was made at 03:58 (no edit summary, by the way): this account's first ever edit. Fortunately User:Blaxthos spotted this 3 minutes later and was able to agree to the delete. Now please don't think that I'm whining about keeping the article that is the subject of this AfD, (because frankly I don't care). I'm thinking more about one of the complete newbies (who arguably write most of the content) who adds a (possibly questionable) article. If I were that person then, a) I get no notification of the delete (see above), b) if I look at the edit history I can only see a temporary account and have nowhere to go to discuss except here. Mcewan (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, all times quoted above are UTC+2 Mcewan (talk) 22:48, 13 September 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.