Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Album of the Year (website)

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. Tone 21:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Album of the Year (website)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:DEL-REASON #7 and, especially, #8: "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline." The page has been tagged for further references since it was created in January 2018. The subject does not appear to have received any coverage in its own right in independent reliable sources, let alone significant coverage. The article's only sources are a tweet containing a bookmark recommendation from a music publication, and mention of a study conducted by a hotel accomodation website (concerthotels.com) in which AOTY album ratings were used.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Also see: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Album of the Year and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#AOTY, again. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)--Guy Macon (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above and current discussions questioning its reliability. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant standalone coverage from reliable sources, yet. Bluesatellite (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't see substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources. Happy to revisit, if someone can provide. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given the website's name, it is not particularly easy to find coverage of it in other sources without spending a significant amount of time searching. However, I did find coverage (either significant or trivial) in the following sources: "Online Music Distribution - How Much Exclusivity Is Needed?" by Nikita Malevanny, stack.com.au (link), The Outline (link), Phoenix New Times (link), Dork (link), The Line of Best Fit (link), Consequence of Sound (link), ABC News Radio (link), The Independent (link), The Week (link), Esquire (link) and Junkee (link). In response to Carlobunnie's comment above, whether or not the website is a reliable source is not relevant to whether or not we should have a page on it. For example, we have many pages about sources which have been deprecated. CowHouse (talk) 04:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the research, but don't see substantial coverage in these cites, mainly just one-off mentions. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I initially thought the coverage might not be substantial. However, the stack.com.au article is entirely about albumoftheyear.org (AOTY) and the Dork and The Line of Best Fit articles were both written because of an incorrect release date which appeared to be based on AOTY. The "Online Music Distribution" book also mentions the website across multiple pages. Taken as a whole, along with the brief mentions in many other sources, I would call that substantial enough coverage for an article. CowHouse (talk) 02:06, 1 November 2020 (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.