Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PureVolume

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. Well done to those who found sources and improved the article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PureVolume

Non-notable website. Fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Mikeblas (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as unreferenced spam. I tagged it for speedy. Drawn Some (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Declining speedy deletion for two reasons: the article has a long history with many editors, and it's already at WP:AfD. I believe I'm reading the consensus at WT:CSD right, especially at WT:CSD#Thoughts?, but tell me if I'm wrong. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep this is a popular music website that has launched musical careers such as Taking Back Sunday, My Chemical Romance, Brand New, and Fall Out Boy (from USA Today [1]). Has an alexa ranking in the top 10k. 100+ incoming links to the article. Article is merely poorly sourced, which can be remedied; there are a lot of sources out there. When I have time I'll improve the article. ~EdGl ★ 16:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 17:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone can find enough third-party non-trivial references to support WP:VERIFY I'll be glad to change my opinion. I don't see them. Drawn Some (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the article I already posted, this says PV (PureVolume) helped Boys Like Girls to become popular, so does this, as well as calling PV "an important website." Passing references in the New York Times (here and here) show it's "up there" with MySpace. Many famous bands, musicians, and even record labels have "official PV pages," like they would have an "official Myspace page." Here's another source (reliable?) stating Tooth & Nail released music on PV: [2]. I could probably find more; is that enough to change your mind? ~EdGl ★ 18:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, those are trivial mentions except for the USA Today. The website needs to be the subject of the reference or otherwise play an important role in the article. Something can be well-known without being notable. Drawn Some (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article may be in poor shape, but I do not understand why people would recommend deleting. I am weary of people recommending things for deletion based on the article being of perceived substandard quality, and would prefer that they just be fixed. 129.64.213.33 (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep PureVolume seems to be worthy of an article here; it has apparently been mentioned by reliable sources, and http://mp3.about.com has an article about it. Whatever the result of this AfD, I recommend rewriting or losing the "Features" section because it makes the article look too much like an advertisement. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The offered "references" don't meet WP:REF because they're not substantial. The articles mention PureVolume, but don't describe it or substantiate it. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. None of the references is substantial. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 02:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Weak keep per the sources added, just barely makes it now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 18:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.This article in the LA Times explicitly discusses the site:[3]. In depth article in Boston Globe all about the site:[4]. USA Today already mentioned:[5]. Article in Pittsburgh Post Gazette discusses online music in general and PureVolume in more than passing:[6]. Brief mention in Newsweek:[7]. It has hundreds of other news mentions, and is mentioned in the same breath as MySpace and MTV. It is obviously notable; if it weren't notable, why are there so many news stories about bands being on it? I'd ask people to get better at Googling before you nominate articles for deletion or vote delete; AfD requires a good faith attempt to find sources, see WP:BEFORE. I'd not heard of it before this AfD, perhaps someone else can work these references into the article? Fences and windows (talk) 04:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also a dedicated article in Billboard:[8]. Fences and windows (talk) 05:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fences and windows found plenty of indepth coverage about the site. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I rewrote the page, using some of the sources Fences and windows graciously provided. I'm not finished, but I can't work on it anymore today. ~EdGl ★ 18:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for adding them in. I'm adding the others as non-inline references, ready to work them in. Fences and windows (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is now a decent article with three very solid reliable references and a non-promotional tone. Kudos to EdG1. Drawn Some (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2009 (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.