Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music4Games

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. John254 23:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music4Games

Not sure if this site passes WP:WEB. Approx. 15,000 G-hits (although Google has been weird for me and it seems to vary) and Alexa is >250,000. Some of the references seem to be statements of fact, rather than notability as well (ie, Music4Games did this rather than Music4Games is important for this) and some of the cited pages are not quite reliable (GIGnews is one). Axem Titanium 21:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Having submitted writing to this website, I cannot claim to have an impartial perspective. Nevertheless, I feel it is necessary to point out that the many exclusive interviews provided by Music4Games ought to be sufficient to distinguish it as notable. This is the only English-language industry website devoted to international game music news and reviews. Deleting this page would be a disservice to readers who wish to research this field. Jeriaska —Preceding comment was added at 05:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Balloonman (talk) 06:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article provides multiple, non-trivial, and independent sources on its own. Internal evidence of notability. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not one of which is any good. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 11:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability, no reliable sources. Fails WP:WEB. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 11:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As creator of this entry, I noted in the discussion section I intended to include a section about contributions, which is now completed. This offers some new references that you may want to review. However, I would note that the traffic and Alexa rating argument aren't very solid as our one week rating is actually at 165k, and if if you look at our reach trend, it has been dramatically increasing since June of 2007 (with the introduction of new writers and new exclusive articles). In terms of references, we have been featured numerous times in print, but obviously that information is hard for anyone to confirm, so I did not feel it was appropriate. To agree with Jeriaska, I would say that M4G is one of the larger sites that focus on such a niche in the industry, and as such, it will never be as large as all-encompassing sites like IGN. Removing this article would indeed be a huge disservice to fans of game music in the United States as a number of composer wikipedia articles link to interviews at Music4Games, which leads some users to want to know more about the site. --Arcubalis|talk|contribs 07:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.238.219 (talk) [reply]

Comment. It is very definitely appropriate to include print references, so if you have them please put them in the article. Just because a reference can't be checked by a click of a mouse it doesn't mean that it is not reliable and verifiable. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Please remember that we are not debating the article's merits as a resource or any service it could provide (WP:USEFUL). It would be best if sources could be found to establish notability. I want to point out that I did not nominate this article for deletion out of malice, rather AFD seems to be the best way to judge an article and also effect an improvement. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You effect improvements by contributing knowledge, not by attempting to delete legitimate research.--Jeriaska
  - An article stagnates if it is not exposed to editors who care. If I had not nominated, there would not be improvement. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This article was never stagnant and you have effected no improvements whatsoever. There were sufficient internal sources to support this being a notable source from the beginning. Your attempts to delete this article are a disservice to the readers of Wikipedia who wish to know more about this field. Jeriaska —Preceding comment was added at 23:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 12:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe that the sources in the article assert sufficient notability. There is no real way to back this human judgement up with logical reasoning, sadly. It is perhaps the reason why we do not have a bot-based deletion system. User:Krator (t c) 17:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable website, it is the goto source for video game music coverage. Has interviewed many notable composers, and is considered a reliable source given its incoming links. - hahnch e n 23:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep I think the references are suitable to establish notability. References do not have to claim that a subject is notable; "statement of facts" is fine. The idea is that the very fact that multiple third parties have written about the subject is a demonstration of its importance. — brighterorange (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2007 (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.