Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YouTunez.com

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. Stifle (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YouTunez.com

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

Appears to fail WP:NCORP. Subject gets only 3 gnews hits, out of which at least two are press releases. Article sourced to subject's site, founder's personal site, an award list which is just there to support that founder won an award for something unrelated to subject, and now the one non-press release gnews hit, a six-sentence piece on a german music business site. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can consider Musikmarkt a reliable source. There was also this interview between a musikmarkt-author and the YouTunez.com founder. You are right that sources for the article are little, but they are not nonexistent. In Digital audio distributors there are comparable articles, e.g. Zimbalam, Zebralution or Feiyr. I think these companies are note-worthy. There aren't a lot of them, especially not German. As long as the articles aren't advertisement, but well-sourced and comprehensive, it shouldn't be a problem. Please keep. DerPaul (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That interview is on a personal website, so it wouldn't seem to confer much in terms of notability. As for this being somehow particularly worthy of note because it's German, I should note that it's acting on the international stage, and treating English as its primary language (the name is English, and even if you go to the German version of the website, the logo remains in English.) I'm not saying that Musikmarkt is an unreliable source, merely that a single six-sentence piece conveys limited amounts of notability at best. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 05:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 11:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One interview on a personal web site is not enough to make a web site notable per WP:WEB. Rucht's award doesn't seem relevant to this website per WP:COATRACK. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, the relevance of that award is unclear. What I was implying is that Rucht is an artist/musician by himself, and that does have a connection with his company. It's hard wording that correctly... DerPaul (talk) 14:01, 25 January 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.