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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plug.dj[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability dubious at best. Only one of the given sources is a reliable source, in relation to initial fundraising. Opinions may differ on this, but I lean to deletion, but clearly this warrants a discussion. Safiel (talk) 06:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A7: The article does not contain notable references and discusses a website that no longer exists. As a result, I agree that the article does not indicate significance.

G11: Article seems to be pushing premium features, other various aspects of website, and is not written in neutral tone. Also, the article both does not contain notable references and discusses a website that no longer exists. Finally, it appears to be forcing people who search for turntable.fm to link to it as a form of click-jacking self-promotion.

Sirzoop (talk) 06:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving and hiding a discussion not directly relevant to deletion of the article. Safiel (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article clearly makes enough of a claim of significance to overcome CSD A7 and is not blatant spam, which negates CSD G11. However, it is very doubtful the subject meets the notability guidelines. I declined speedy deletion as it is not the proper process to use in this situation. Articles for Deletion is the proper process, as this needs to be discussed by the community. Safiel (talk) 06:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment I have also declined CSD within the last 24 hours from another IP. I don't believe it meets A7, or G11 but I'm not sure it's notable. SQL ^{Query me!} 10:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] I think that the article does not show a level of significance. Just because it is not blatant spam does not mean it is significant. Plug.DJ existed only for a few years and it is already shut down. It also does not appear to have many credible sources. Wikipedia is not the place for dead websites that no longer exist. Sirzoop (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment Only a credible CLAIM of significance is required to overcome CSD A7. It is not required that the subject actually BE significant to avoid speedy deletion under CSD A7. I merely has to make a credible claim of significance, which this article does. Once a credible claim of significance is made, speedy deletion is off the table. WP:A7 further explains the requirements for speedy deletion under CSD A7. From there on, deletion must be pursued by using either Proposed Deletion WP:PROD or Articles for Deletion WP:AFD. Under both processes, the ACTUAL notability of the subject is used in determining whether the article is kept or deleted. That is why this article could not be deleted under speedy deletion, but instead must be deleted, in this case, under Articles for Deletion. Safiel (talk) 06:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment Also, the fact that something no longer exists is irrelevant to determining its notability. Safiel (talk) 06:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment This essay may be of help as well Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance. Safiel (talk) 06:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving and hiding a discussion not directly relevant to deletion of the article. Safiel (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article clearly makes enough of a claim of significance to overcome CSD A7 and is not blatant spam, which negates CSD G11. However, it is very doubtful the subject meets the notability guidelines. I declined speedy deletion as it is not the proper process to use in this situation. Articles for Deletion is the proper process, as this needs to be discussed by the community. Safiel (talk) 06:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have also declined CSD within the last 24 hours from another IP. I don't believe it meets A7, or G11 but I'm not sure it's notable. SQL ^{Query me!} 10:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article does not show a level of significance. Just because it is not blatant spam does not mean it is significant. Plug.DJ existed only for a few years and it is already shut down. It also does not appear to have many credible sources. Wikipedia is not the place for dead websites that no longer exist. Sirzoop (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Only a credible CLAIM of significance is required to overcome CSD A7. It is not required that the subject actually BE significant to avoid speedy deletion under CSD A7. I merely has to make a credible claim of significance, which this article does. Once a credible claim of significance is made, speedy deletion is off the table. WP:A7 further explains the requirements for speedy deletion under CSD A7. From there on, deletion must be pursued by using either Proposed Deletion WP:PROD or Articles for Deletion WP:AFD. Under both processes, the ACTUAL notability of the subject is used in determining whether the article is kept or deleted. That is why this article could not be deleted under speedy deletion, but instead must be deleted, in this case, under Articles for Deletion. Safiel (talk) 06:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, the fact that something no longer exists is irrelevant to determining its notability. Safiel (talk) 06:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This essay may be of help as well Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance. Safiel (talk) 06:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was suspecting I was going to !vote for deletion, but this is an undeniably reliable reference covering the subject in some detail. There is also another Tech Crunch article. This discusses the subject in some detail, but I deem it an unreliable, self published source whose prose style hardly inspires confidence. A source called "Radio Survivor" has a couple of articles [1] [2] featuring the service, but I am unable to ascertain its reliability. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability established by secondary sources. Also, apparently not dead yet. Blackguard 01:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Moved Notability by secondary sources. More reliable sources can be added because it does not hurt to add more sources given that it is reliable. Removal should not be biased that the website is no longer functional. Another possible suggestion, move to Draft:plug.dj so that more reliable sources can be added to the page. Although it would be kind of farfetched. Azndrumsticks (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one except for one person in here had actually searched for sources. I took some of my time out to find a bunch of sources. Some may not be reliable alone but can be justified with another source. [1] [2] [3] All 3 talks about why plug.dj shut down. Radio survivor appears to be a blog so I wouldn't use it as a source by itself. [4] Talks about the budget it previously gained. [5] Another Radio Survivor one. [6] hypebot appears to be a blog like radio survivor but both are not related in anyways besides the fact that both are talking about plug.dj [7] A Magazine called PCDays that is Czech. The translated content talks about Dubtrack.fm being the new plug.dj [8] Tech co appears to be a blog. May or may not be reliable. [9] Vator news talks about the budget plug.dj had received from investors. [10] PCDAYS Magazine in Czech. Translated contents talks about plug.dj closing down. [11] Considering this is a press release website i don't believe it is credible to a certain extent but it talks about Plug.dj. I think only a small portion is usable. [12] Talks about alternative to Apple music and spotify and Plug.dj is listed on there. [13] It is in spanish, talks about anyone can be a dj in the party relating to plug.dj [14] This one is Lifehacker India. Might not be reliable considering Best is potentially biased but it has possibly usable information. [15] Lifehacker Japan talks about functional purpose of Plug.Dj [16] Lightly talks about plug.dj. [17] Only a speckle mention of plug.dj on this reliable new source. [18] Radio Survivor, talks about Online Music Room Communities. [19] Um, another radio survivor. Mentions plug.dj only 3 times. Might not be usable. [20] This is in Japanese. The translated content talks about Plug.Dj and turntable.fm [21] rolling stone mentioned plug.dj in one paragraph at the bottom. [22] This one is in spanish, talks about dubtrack.fm because plug.dj shutted down. [23] Talks about plug.dj shutting down. [24] A blog that might contain bias. [25]Pando talks about plug.dj [26] Another tech.co talking about plug.dj All in all, I found at least 26 sources with a quarter of them being blogs. A lot were lifehacker(or country variants) and Radio Survivor. The sources should not be mostly one or two sources but, with these sources (of course checking again for bias) i have found with a mere search it is potentially sufficient. Azndrumsticks (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Draft and Userfy instead as this may be best if work is continuously needed because this is currently questionable for itself. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.