Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical music blog

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 a WP:Snow Keep. Inmysolitude (talk) 08:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Classical music blog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I fail to see why a genre of blogging deserves its own article Computerjoe's talk 21:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article is well referenced to multiple independent reliable sources which establish notability. It meets all of the general requirements given at WP:Notability.Broadweighbabe (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I can't see why a type of blog devoted to a particular subject field does not deserve its own article. No actual reason for deletion has been given. DGG (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Whilst being wary of WP:OTHERSTUFF, I feel allowing this article to exist would allow articles on oyster blogs and theremin blogs. There's a blog of effectively every subject in the world. Should we allow articles on every blogging niche which have been covered by publications about that niche? The references on that article are primarily to sections of publications on niche subjects. One would hope publications/sections of publications on classical music would have covered blogging on the subject. Computerjoe's talk 23:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Broadweighbabe and DGG.Nrswanson (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep See guidelines outlined on WP:WEB. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. Definitely; see the topics outlined in the References. One out of the many mentions is that by a critic for the New York Times, Anne Midgette. In addition, Alex Ross talk about it for the New Yorker. Hardly non-notable. Although it only requires one of the criteria to be met, this article also meets the general criteria for notabilitly. Cheers. I'^mperator 23:34, 15 March 2009 (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.