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 ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnikmusic[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Two years after AfD#1, the only reliable source press Sputnikmusic could muster is a mention in the The Capital Times that "Sputnikmusic.com (is) a community-driven site featuring CD reviews." Sputnikmusic formally was known as Musicianforums. Musicianforums now redirects to Sputnikmusic and previously was listed at AfD. Musicianforums received no press coverage. Collectively, sputnikmusic has not received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Sputnikmusic to develop an attributable article on the topic. The topic fails general notability guidelines and the article should be deleted.

This account was registered for the sole purpose of maintaining our page and establishing credibility and general notability guidelines due to the incessant vandalism our page receives from problem users. This was only registered a couple days ago, and we haven't had any time to fix our page as of yet. Furthermore, with the constant vandalism our page receives from problem users at our site, a lot of problems arise. It is our goal to meet Wikipedia's standards; unfortunately, I don't have a lot of time at this very moment to fix the page. It's going to take quite a bit of work on my end to fix things and meet your guidelines, so I hope that asking for a little more patience, considering this account was just launched within the week, wouldn't be too much to ask. Thanks for your time. -SputnikmusicReviews 19:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC) — SputnikmusicReviews (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Just a couple of issues to point out:

Sputnikmusic was not formerly known as Musicianforums- they were two separate entities and the latter was assimilated by the former, and is still practically distinct from the parent site.
Sputnikmusic's staff is generally considered to be one of the most reliable of its kind; the web's largest review aggregation website Metacritic lists Sputnikmusic among its sources (almost all, if not all, of which have wikipedia entries); a simple Google hits search turns up two million results; the website has been mentioned in several mainstream media publications, such as The Guardian; Sputnikmusic has been cited in publicity material by a wide variety of highly successful bands, artists and publicity agencies, including Epitaph Records and Sony/BMG; and in retail outlets such as Buy.com.

-- Anylayman 21:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another important aspect of sputnikmusic.com's credibility is that the staff reviewers routinely get promotional material sent to them by big labels including Columbia, Epitaph, Victory, among others. While this is not like a citation in the AP in that it can't be linked as a resource, there is something to be said for being considered valuable by those producing and marketing the music. --DFelon204409 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable website. Keb25 05:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- notability not yet demonstrated. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Please find more sourcing, and will change. Doesn't quite pass muster. • Lawrence Cohen 13:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - possible WP:COI, no WP:N. If notability could be demonstrated, I'd be happy to clean up the article. Certain parts (Like News) jump out at me and look like ads. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 14:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no bias toward re-creation as a properly sourced article. There isn't enough data here to demonstrate notability - additional, independant sources would help immensely toward that end. Some of the article hints of possible Conflict of Interest, which would need work. I appreciate that the subject has attempted to correct information presented here (~~see SputnikmusicReviews, above)~~, but - with all respect - the article has been in this condition for quite a while. If there's some independent press that may demonstrate notability, now is the time to bring it to the article, if it's not already too late. (EC) ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind - The user in question appears to have been blocked. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:02, 1 October 2007 (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.