Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJBooth.net

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. No evidence of non trivial coverage in reliable sources. No prejudice against recreation if sources can be found. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJBooth.net

Fails WP:WEB. Only sources are either self-published or trivial blog mentions. Spellcast (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep To quote BZisook, "They are one of the TOP 10 most visited Hip-Hop oriented sites on the net. Their reviews get published in the Google News feed too." I'd say that's notable. Also, everyone seems to have forgotten Wikipedia is not paper. Tom Danson (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is different from "popularity". Google news only returns results from the DJBooth site itself. Per WP:WEB, there needs to be reliable sources that discusses the site in detail. Wikipedia isn't paper, but that's not an excuse for non-notable sites to be kept. Spellcast (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This article surely meets standards. There is enough external links and references, and the website is one of the most visited. --LAA Fan 22:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give any in-depth coverage from reliable sources? Spellcast (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD was previously closed as "keep". It is unclosed and relisted in accordance with this DRV discussion. Sandstein 20:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete No proof that it's one of the most popular sites. Also, popular ≠ notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I can't find any reliable third party sources which refer to this site. The only reference, that is not a blog, which I found is at a rappers news site. It may be covered by specialist hip hop print media e.g. The Source magazine but I don't have access to this. Nk.sheridan Talk 22:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any evidence of notability in Google, News, Books, Scholar. Just some passing mentions and interviews by them, nothing reliable specifically about the site. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No attribution of notability to independent and credible sources. Fails WP:WEB. --Dhartung | Talk 00:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable website. ~ Ameliorate _{U T} @ 03:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DiverseMentality (Talk) (Contribs) 05:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Here is an example of a reliable source. Here is another reliable source. And finally, a mention in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm doubtful whether the first two are reliable sources, and they're definitely not significant discussions of DJBooth.net. They are short articles about artists, mentioning DJBooth.net. The third last is a reliable source, but again nowhere near significant coverage. Those links do not constitute evidence of notability. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Also, please note that the website's creator, user:BZisook (link), has a conflict of interest. Spellcast (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2008 (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.