Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AbsolutePunk.net (2nd nomination)

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. The site certainly has a significant web presence, but there is a consensus to delete in this debate, and given the lack of multiple sources I can't say that this is incorrect. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AbsolutePunk.net[edit]

Article fails WP:WEB; lack of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself; primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability. DiverseMentality 04:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — besides the sole reliable source listed in the article, I cannot find any other such reliable sources that may establish notability of this site. MuZemike (talk) 08:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Absolutely delete as spam. Alexius08 (talk) 09:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources seem to exist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources. Being mentioned in passing in a Huntsville article about something else is why that "non-trivial coverage" phrase is used in WP:N. Since that's the ONLY source that's not the website itself, that means this wikipedia article currently has zero reliable sources. -Markeer 16:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because there are enough other pages devoted to websites which are just as notable and it was JUST nominated 2 months ago. DX927 (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a direct argument of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is always an error in AfD cases. If there are other articles better than, worse than or the same as this one, they have absolutely no meaning in this discussion. -Markeer 01:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons given on original nomination to delete. Mtrolley (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's very vague. Plus, consensus changes. DiverseMentality 05:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. NME seems to think Absolute Punk is a reliable source [1], [2]. The founder being voted "#18 in their list of "Top 25 Most Influential People in Online Music." by Blender also seems a claim of notability, though only sourced to a scanned copy of the mag from an AbsolutePunk forum! Nouse4aname (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per wp:web. -- Jeandré, 2008-11-15t13:07z
Weak Delete: With sources such as these it can be difficult to establish notability because there will be many links to them as they are freely available on the internet and, as user run websites, anyone create articles and submit news. Site such as this are well used by indy artists to get free publicity via Self-published sources or via fans re-posting information found in those same sources. This is a case where you can not find many sources about the subject that are not self published, but you can find many sources that link to the subject. A perfect example is the "Gym Class Heroes drummer speaks about arrest" article from NME cited above. It is not an article about Absolute Punk, nor does the band mention them. The only mention is "Absolute Punk reports the band are set to play the following live dates" followed by a list of dates for the band Gym Class Heroes. This is information that is freely available from many sources and if the "Absolute Punk reports..." wording was taken out the NME article would have no ill effect and would not suffer. It feels like I say this a lot of late but, for me, all I ask is that a few feature stories on a subject exist or, if they do not, several "non trivial" articles where the subject is addressed in a not-trivial way do. In this case articles about an artist who speak at length about how Absolute Punk helped to establish their fan base, led to their record deal, helped them to get a gold record or something similar would work. Articles that simply cite Absolute Punk I would not consider as "significant coverage" or even part of "multiple non-trival sources". Articles such as the two mentioned from NME do meet the "non-trivial" definition. Per "Top 25 Most Influential People in Online Music." Of the actual site it says that "it survived the blink-182 era to become the essential Web echo chamber for all things punk and emo, with 150,000 users writing as many as 60,000 gushy, newsy and polemical posts a day." Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:53, 16 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.