Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiny Mix Tapes


 * 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. DS 01:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Tiny Mix Tapes
This article was originally a CSD A7. A DRV consensus concluded that sufficient notability was asserted such that an AfD was appropriate, and overturned. The matter is submitted to AfD for full consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not sure if it's going to reach the draconian WP:WEB, but it is certainly noted a lot in the press and is often cited as an important review site internationally.  Chances are, people who read music reviews online know this site, especially since so many offline resources look toward it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Searching under "TinyMixTapes" brings up a further variety of referencing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable music website. -- No Guru 18:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Google search shows 13 hits, none of which seem to meet WP:WEB standards.  Unless I'm missing something... -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The name of the site is apparently all one word. Recury 19:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * FisherQueen, as per my reply to Irishguy below, 13 actual individual hits is not what I am getting. My results are in the tens or even hundreds of thousands. Try a different browser. -- Dhartung | Talk 03:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 *  Delete  The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of the criteria of WP:WEB. I'm not seeing that. "Tiny Mix Tapes" brings forth 11 unique hits. "Tinymixtapes" brings forth 107. Neither of those are staggering numbers. IrishGuy talk 19:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Irishguy, for your first link, I see 11 pages of hits (308,000), for your second, 20 pages and 70,000 hits. I know that Google cookies can personalize results, but I don't see how those are even possible. Try your search again with a different browser. -- Dhartung | Talk 03:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct. I'm not sure how I got those inital responses. I stand corrected...and equally confused. I will also strike my delete vote as the article now has references. The earlier version, devoid of references, didn't really assert notability. Now it does. IrishGuy talk 03:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good to hear it! Thanks for double-checking. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The Guardian, Concord Monitor, Spartanburg Herald-Journal and St. Louis Dispatch all have writen about Tinymixtapes' automatic mix tapes generator. And I have no idea how editors who think Google hit counts mean something can become administrators. That argument has been chucked into the circular file a long time ago. ~ trialsanderrors 20:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Since that nice little personal comment has so much to do with the article, thanks for sharing it. IrishGuy talk 22:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Since that little comment on your rationale for recommending deletion has nothing to do with you as a person (I didn't even bother to look at your user page), it has everything to do with this debate and ultimately with the fate of the article. ~ trialsanderrors 03:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * While it isn't correct to assume that all knowledge is on the internet (scholarly works, biographies, etc.) when it is a website, I think that search hits can be relevant and shouldn't just be tossed as a rule. IrishGuy talk 03:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep seems important by glance at the article and reference to web hits. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as having significant third-party non-trivial media coverage. ObtuseAngle 21:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. It's notable and seems to have plenty of independent non-trivial coverage. This could be better documented in the article itself, but AFD is not the cleanup department. schi talk  22:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, I am glad some of the sources I brought up at DRV have been added, although inline references would be preferable. -- Dhartung | Talk 03:07, 10 March 2007 (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.