Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bandzoogle

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bandzoogle

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

Product just doesn't seem at all notable. JoelWhy (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure about seems, but the first hits on google are primary, twitter, a2im, facebook and myspace in that order. The only refs I found close to reliable weren't, including a blog article written by someone who works at Bandzoogle, written for the Washington Times[1] (would fail WP:RS on several counts), and a few other blog articles and a news release or two that all would be short of clearly demonstrating notability. I'm open minded, but I found lots of social media linkage (good SEO) but nothing significant from an independent, reliable source. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note The journalist who wrote the Communities at The Washington Times article sited above does not work for Bandzoogle. She works for Communities at The Washington Times, which is completely separate from Bandzoogle. Please see also revised reference list. --CandleOfFaith (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but "My comrades at Bandzoogle - a music website development platform - are sponsoring SeeTalkGrow with web-hosting and site layout templates. They were even kind enough to offer me a special deal for SeeTalkGrow viewers. Specifically, six months of free webhosting and site design widgets when viewers use SeeTalkGrow as a referrer." (SeeTalkGrow is the author's project) so I still question the independence of this blog article. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Perhaps the best thing to do then would simply be to remove that particular reference? I have recently added others that are more objective.

Reply That link is fine for what it is, it doesn't have to be removed, but it would probably be good to note that she is involved. The key is that the link isn't "independent", thus can't establish notability. It can still be used to provide information, like any other primary link. WP:N covers notability, and to be demonstrated notable, it is generally accepted that a subject needs a couple of articles by publications that are independent of the subject matter, ie: not primary links such as their own website or written by someone affiliated. Primary links can't be used to prove the subject is "important" (notable), since they are talking about themselves. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bother It seems someone already deleted the Washington Times link. It's weird though, I don't see it in the edit history. Anyway ... I added new objective references including Hypbot and TechDirt, both of which seem like reliable media sources. I know Hypbot is. Also, a site called BandWriter. The article is pretty enthusiastic sounding, but it is a source unconnected to Bandzoogle. Let me know what you think. Thanks! CandleOfFaith (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CandleOfFaith (talk • contribs) 14:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Billboard Also added Billboard.biz reference. Billboard is one of the most high profile magazines in the music business, so I think these new references should fix our problem. CandleOfFaith (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbot is a self published blog, it isn't professionally vetting, and written by one person,Bruce Houghton, so it generally fails WP:RS as a reliable source. Techdirt is a group blog, with articles submitted by the readers. Slashdot.org is exactly like this and is not a reliable source, so my guess is that it isn't as well. To be "reliable", it must be vetted and edited by professionals. This is broadly defined, but almost every small group blog, user submitted blog or self published website is not going to make the grade. They are sometimes useful for non-controversial material, but not to establish notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete plain promo Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive Feedback? Can you point out what in the article comes off as promo so it can be edited? Thanks. CandleOfFaith (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problems are a.o. tone and details. I will make a draft on the talkpage insterad of discussing it here in detail. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Thank you. I usually write freelance PR so any help you can give me to get a more journalistic tone would be great.

Delete as lacking coverage by independent third party sources. Ping my talk page if they're added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2012 (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.