Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audiojunkies

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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audiojunkies

Non-notable website, COI SPAM. The website was created by the same person that wrote this article. A few brief mentions in blogs in relation to footage they filmed of a protest. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm just seeing one blog in the sources, and it is by no mean unreliable by any stretch of the imagination (Perez Hilton is a very well-known blogger, he's even got an article). Blogs can be used as sources, just as long as they're no the home and garden variety. And COI is not a valid deletion criterion. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not Perez Hilton is reliable (keep in mind it's a gossip/rumor blog), the blog post mentions nothing about the website, just the protest. It has the YouTube video linked that this website produced, but that isn't significant coverage of the website. The entire text is "Hundreds of angry British youth gathered outside the offices of the Daily Mail in London on Saturday to protest their negative characterizations of their favorite band, My Chemical Romance, and the paper's story that one Emo teen killed herself because of their music. This is the protesters' story and their video from this weekend's rally!" [1] No mention of Audiojunkies at all. By "brief mentions in blogs" I meant things like this, that do nothing to establish notability. The best source is the NME link, which is really not significant at all. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 11:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: It appears to meet criterion 3 for WP:WEB, as the video produced by the site has been mentioned and credited at other known and reliable websites. But whether or not this is sufficient for notability is debatable. As mentioned in nom, there is strong sense of WP:VSCA both in terms of creator of the article and its tone. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 19:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that means regularly-created-and-distributed content, like a webzine or online newspaper, or a vlog. If someone were notable for the fact of creating one YouTube video that was linked to on a blog or forum... I shutter to think. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 19:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient notability WP:VSCA. JamesBurns (talk) 01:38, 28 November 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.