Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vevo Certified

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 Redirect to Vevo. Opinion here is split between deleting, redirecting, and merging. On balance, a redirect seems reasonable and is supported by a majority of particpants. Whether there is anything worth merging I will leave to interested editors - currently there is no sourced content to merge. Michig (talk) 08:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vevo Certified

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

Completely promotional in nature. Documents the status of videos provided through a single vendor, sourced solely through that single vendor. This violates both WP:NOT#ADVERTISING and the guideline derived from it, WP:SINGLEVENDOR. —Kww(talk) 22:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Vevo as a small mention of existence. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 00:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can be mentioned in the Vevo article, but does not merit the redirect suggested by merger. As the nominator indicates it runs afoul of WP:NOT#ADVERTISING and WP:SINGLEVENDOR. --Bejnar (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 05:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep - Definitely deserves a redirect, ~~unsure on keep.~~ See [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Scratch that. Definitely keep. JT_dale^Talk~ 06:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you've presented a set of links but no argument. What about the links you have provided would indicate that this article doesn't serve as promotion?—Kww(talk) 02:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article may need rewriting, but the fact of the matter is that it receives a huge amount of news coverage, not to mention all the partial mentions I didn't link where it is used as a qualifier to prove how successful artists are. Therefore, it certainly qualifies. The single vendor argument fails since VEVO covers a huge number of record labels and artists, and it isn't a chart, it's a viewing certification. JT_dale^Talk~ 04:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which would be a reasonable argument if I were arguing to delete Vevo, which I am not.—Kww(talk) 15:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now your just picking fault because I dropped 'VEVO Certified' from my sentence accidentally. It's pretty clear what I'm talking about since VEVO itself isn't a certification, its a video viewing platform and youtube network. JT_dale^Talk~ 02:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying that your arguments are an excellent justification for keeping Vevo and that I am not arguing for deleting it. They aren't a particularly good argument for keeping a complete and exhaustive list of each and every video that has been delivered a certain number of times through a single distribution channel.—Kww(talk) 02:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Vevo. Not notable enough for its own article. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 23:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. I can't find any secondary sources either. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vevo. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:19, 3 January 2015 (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.