Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Square Enix Music Online

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. Despite the good faith references, ELs, and other improvements, there's not enough information about the site from third-party, verifiable sources - not the same thing as information from the site about itself - to meet WP:WEB. KrakatoaKatie 05:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Square Enix Music Online[edit]

Declined prod. Non-notable fansite. I found it on recent changes patrol and was going to CSD it but it seemed legitimate. It turns out it is not associated with Square Enix but rather is a distinct and non-notable entity. Plenty of web hits exist, but they are forums on the site itself, blogs, and regular hits point TO the site, not independent coverage ABOUT the site. Frank | talk 13:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I said in the prod, it seems to be a vanity article about a simple, even if comprehensive, fan page. I will grant that I PRODed it pretty shortly after creation, but I also would consider the wikilink in the 'see also' of Video game music seemed a bit leaning toward the spammy side. Also note that there seems to be a number of copyvios on the site. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Lack of notability of website established. MuZemike (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The site is reliable and cited extensively in the FF discography articles, but it isn't notable in itself to warrant an article. Kariteh (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete; reconsider Hi i'm extremely sorry I don't know how to work this talk page. And i understand your concerns; but i did not get the chance to change anything in the last 8 hours. please see what i have written under bootlegs + information for consumers. my case is this: there are not many RELIABLE websites for information and links to legitimate online stores. i have been a victim myself of bootlegs, before this website helped me. it is not just for fans. it is a place for genuine Square Enix information, and it helps the company in making its sales. please let me know what you think, thank you very much Andrelim1 (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That really doesn't have any bearing on the notability of the site. There's plenty of places that warn against boots. There's plenty of places to find info for 'reliable' online stores. There's also plenty of articles on WP about places where one can easily pirate, to say nothing of buying bootlegs (you can buy them on Amazon if you're not careful). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hear your sympathy, but Wikipedia is not to be used as an advertisement vehicle; it's for verifiable information. MuZemike (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if the issue is notability (which i did not know exactly beforehand), please explain further: i just read the notability guidelines and i want to know which point in particular you are talking about - and i don't see how this isn't verifiable information. the article is for general interest/information as well. and also, 'plenty of places'?: this is about the most well known website for this sort of information; just type it into google. other than these, i understand the points/concern; thank you for telling me. (and when i state these points, they are never intended to offend.) Andrelim1 (talk) 01:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is so, we need only to see the reliable sources that say so. Google hits are not necessarily reliable sources; notability should not be confused with popularity. Frank | talk 02:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added an external link from VG Frequency - presented by OverClocked ReMix, which is in Wikipedia as well. it talks about Chris/SEMO's website interview with a composer. will try to improve more. thanks Andrelim1 (talk) 02:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The webmaster of SEMO is away. I believe he may have more notability references..need to await his return. but the link from VG Frequency/Overclocked is still there. Andrelim1 (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The webmaster is not a reliable source. Please read the welcome page, and also about notability. The question here is not whether or not the site exists, because it clearly does. The question is whether or not it is notable enough to have an entry in Wikipedia. Frank | talk 10:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The webmaster would have a conflict on interest and his involvement would give the article less credibility, not more. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i agree with you, but i'm not saying he is the one who's going to do the notability part. im saying that i believe he has received some praise about the site from various composers that have contacted him. i'm asking the webmaster simply because i don't have access to this secondary info. of course it would be ridiculous to ask him to state the notability of his site! and, is the link i have supplied before considered to be a reliable secondary source? it is a peer/similar website (powered by Overclocked) coverage praising SEMO's 'thorough interview'. do you consider that to be a sign of notability, considering OverClocked ReMix itself is in wikipedia (which means it should be reliable since it got there in the first place)? Andrelim1 (talk) 11:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added another link for notability Andrelim1 (talk) 12:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That link made me take another look at the site -- I didn't see it before, but the sheet music section (and to a lesser point the downloads section, as they appear to be complete tracks) is clearly a copyvio. While as I said above, that's not an inherent reason to deny it an article on WP, but it's just another issue that needs to be considered. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'These scans are provided solely for sampling use and as a reference resource for occasional arrangers, album reviewers, and piano players. If you need this sheet music often or for performance purposes, please support the artists by purchasing this book using the store links provided above.' there are links to purchase the sheet music, the website has already issued a disclaimer saying to support the artists. it promotes the sheet music. as far as i've seen, the downloads have all been about 20-30?sec samples(not sure about exact length but ive never seen a whole song). The disclaimer is clear; it is ultimately the responsibility of the downloader. i'm going to sleep, goodnight. hope it's notable enough. if not, the webmaster should be back in 3+ days. can't guarantee anything until then. Andrelim1 (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out the main DL page and they are clearly full legnth tracks, at least on the 'featured of the week' ones. Also, adding a disclaimer that one should buy if they like doesn't mean you get around potential piracy issues; again, this may or may not have a complete bearing on the notability of the site, but blatently linking to such a site goes against the grain of what WP represents. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

did anyone read my last message? i believe i have improved it considerably to show notability to prevent deletion. can you please tell me what you think so i know what's going on? thanks everyone. sorry for hassle. i also added 2 links, from a collection of many links, that show the website itself is very often quoted as a source of information and the website is constructively talked about to an extent. Andrelim1 (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Made the article neater, reference-wise. Still awaiting feedback. Andrelim1 (talk) 06:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the website described is seemingly designed for a very niche market (Square-Enix game music enthusiasts), the market itself is of a demanding nature when the issue of reliable and original products relating to the music of Square-Enix productions. This site provides what I believe to be the premier source of links and thorough information for any avid enthusiast wishing to purchase or research the composers and music detailed. Furthermore, regarding notability, the site and its webmaster have conducted interviews with composers directly related to the site's subject, certainly a notable achievement for a fan-administered, not-for-profit website. As previously described above, the site has been noted by larger pages as a worthy and extremely useful source of information for the intended market. As covered by the sixth reference regarding this issue, the site has been regarded as notable by the VGfrequency website (among others) as an essential source of reference for the Square-Enix fanbase. 1Bhaskar3 (talk) 10:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1Bhaskar3 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC) NOTE: This comment was provided by an account with no other contributions to the project, created approximately 30 minutes before the comment was entered.[reply]
NOTE TO CLOSER Note that much of the above text is one user updating the work on the page (take is as you will) -- and the fact that much work was done means it /may/ be possible that the first !votes aren't fully as relevent as they otherwise would be (including my own). I'm sure anyone closing will see this fact, but I just want to be sure. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok what does that mean now? forgive me; for i am unfamiliar with wikipedia conventions Andrelim1 (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It means that I'm noting to the person who decides the final result of this AFD that the first comments were directed toward a very different version of the page. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. IT notifies the admin handling this AfD that the content/structure of the article is different now than it was when it was nominated for AfD. It can be a good thing, as it tells the admin that a good-faith effort has been employed to save the article from deletion. MuZemike (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's still not a single reliable source showing a shred of notability in the article. I certainly agree that a good-faith effort has been employed to save the article from deletion, but unfortunately, the subject simply isn't notable, no matter how much effort is put into the article. Frank | talk 21:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That's why I said can be and not is. MuZemike (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thank you for all your feedback and I appreciate all of your time. I know + understand that all of you are just doing your job, so definitely no hard feelings (as pretty much everyone is a Wikipedian). Nevertheless, I have two main concerns from your statements above addressed below: Andrelim1 (talk) 04:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I believe it is slightly unfair to say that all my references do not indicate notability. The post on SEMO by VG frequency is a reliable secondary source in the context of the video game music world. Because this ‘world’ is not mainstream, it may appear to be a non-reputable source. However, the fact that the site is powered by OverClocked ReMix, a very reputable video game music organization/website featured on Wikipedia, I believe this carries some weighting that is not recognised here. Secondly, if this article follows through in deletion because of this policy of ‘notability’, and because you people seem to have made up your minds already, I would like to make one further point: I have seen some Wikipedia entries that have cited less references, of near-equivalent reliability as this article, and they still exist! This doesn't make sense! Sure, I understand that they have a tag at the top that says something along the lines of ‘may contain original research’ or ‘questionable notability’ but at least they haven’t been deleted! All I’m asking is for a bit of consistency with these policies. And I believe on the notability page, it says potential for notability should also be addressed? I admit it was stupidity of me to at first not include references, because I forgot them, and am unfamiliar with reference tags. But I believe that there is SOME notability that you have not recognized. Thank you, this should be my last message unless I am required to speak again. Appreciate the discussion and thanks for your time. Andrelim1 (talk) 04:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your position, and the closing administrator will weigh the discussion and the reliability of a particular source. Even if the source is reliable and independent, it still doesn't mean the subject is notable, which is really what the whole discussion has been about. Regarding other articles, it's true that there exist many articles in Wikipedia that shouldn't. I think that is inevitable when there are 6,824,005 articles in the project. I personally have deleted almost 500 articles at WP:CSD just in July. There are many more that could be deleted, but there is a process - and this discussion is part of it. You may also want to read this page, which discusses why other articles really don't matter in the context of this discussion.

Having said all that, I (and other contributors) appreciate your efforts and if this article winds up being deleted, I hope you would not take it personally but merely as a reflection on whether or not the subject is notable. It's not about whether the article is well written or not. There are so many articles which can use help that I hope you'd find another place to contribute. And - there's no telling where this one will wind up. Because a few of us think it should be deleted doesn't mean it will be. It's not a vote, but a discussion of consensus. Frank | talk 14:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your fair opinion, while considering mine too. You must clearly all do a good job. Whether this gets deleted or not, thank you all very much. Andrelim1 (talk) 05:51, 22 July 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.