Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music (second 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Doesn't satisfy notability requirements of WP:WEB. Minor edit 08:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WEB, no reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Last AfD contained assertions that it was notable in its field: Alexa rank for site is 6,100+. --SarekOfVulcan 15:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. Well known guide, discussed on thousands of sites (among others this one at univ. of Colorade) [1] Is it a habit on the English wikipedia to nominate articles again and keep pushing and pushing until it might get removed because its nominated unnoticed at some moment ? --LimoWreck 15:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Noticed that, have you?--SarekOfVulcan 18:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:SarekOfVulcan has been spam-canvassing for votes so please inspect this case. [2] --Minor edit 04:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LimoWreck was a participant in the previous Afd; notifying LimoWreck of another Afd is reasonable, especially when the previous Afd was a unanimous keep. John Vandenberg 04:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reject that characterization. I specifically asked for good references to its notability.--SarekOfVulcan 15:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per here, here, here, here and so on. Take administrative measures against the persistent deletist user. --ssr 16:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The website is notable, though sometimes controversial; the article is appropriate. There are some biased elements to the website and the article mentions those in keeping with NPOV. No reason to remove the article. --Parzival418 _Hello 19:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• What reliable sources are there for an article on this? Recury 20:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google brings up around 50,000 hits for the website; many are blogs (which for a website can satisfy notability), but here's one that's a secondary reference in a published book summarizing a scholarly seminar in Vienna in 2005, a very solid WP:RS:

Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries: 9th European Conference, Ecdl 2005 ... By Andreas Rauber, page 37 (Hierarchical Organization and Description of Music Collections at the Artist Level) --Parzival418 _Hello 03:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is an example of organizing music by classifying it into genres and subgenres, but not as information source, ie it does not confirm the importance of the Ishkur's Guide. --Minor edit 05:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree the book does not say Ishkur's is "important". But that was not my intention. I was providing the reference merely to show that there is a reliable secondary source that mentions Ishkur's guide in print. This goes to notability and reliable source, which are not the same thing as importance. --Parzival418 _Hello 07:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've added the above reference to the article. --Parzival418 _Hello 03:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability needs to be written into an encyclopedic manner, but the guide is hosted by Digitally Imported radio, which is a major website for electronica music. I'd say at least half the crowd that's into the genres knows of this guide. I'll try to write it in myself next time I'm awake enough. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 02:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:SarekOfVulcan has been spam-canvassing for votes so please inspect this case. [3] --Minor edit 04:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a spam canvas for him to inform me that the DRV which promted this relisted closed and resulted in, well, this relisting. Further, it is probably a good thing for him to ask for somebody he recognizes as being knowledgeable about the topic in question to review the AfD. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 03:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. Thanks for coming up with that phrasing, Auto.--SarekOfVulcan 15:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per ssr; nominator failed to provide a specific reason why the previous Afd and deletion review need to be revisited. John Vandenberg 03:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable in the dance community. 58.110.61.191 13:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Ishkur's Guide does meet WP:WEB; is "the content distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators"? yes. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 14:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep — per numerous reasons given above
  — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 13:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Love this website, but there aren't any indepedent, secondary reliable sources to base an article on. Wickethewok 21:26, 11 June 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.