Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sputnikmusic (5th nomination)

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Sputnikmusic}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Sputnikmusic}})

All passing mentions or refs to the cite itself. There are some hits on a WP:BEFORE but nothing that seems to meet WP:SIGCOV imo. BuySomeApples (talk) 12:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• Keep : I am puzzled that this website can be nominated again for deletion for its notability. I just read through the references listed in the article for deletion and I read that the website is cited as a reliable source in published books, academic works and mainstream magazines. After a quick search, I found some magazines and newspapers that cite Sputnikmusic as a reliable source (The Florida Times-Union [https://eu.jacksonville.com/story/entertainment/music/2009/02/20/music-notes/15995694007/], Classic Rock [https://www.loudersound.com/features/the-10-worst-rock-albums-this-century-according-to-everyone-else], Verve [https://www.vervemagazine.in/arts-and-culture/six-fans-describe-why-they-found-emotional-fulfilment-through-alternative-music-genres], Loudwire [https://loudwire.com/study-green-day-father-of-all-among-worst-reviewed-albums-century/]). The website is still listed among the generally reliable sources in Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources and in the Metacritic engine. My best guess is that all the parameters for notability are checked. Lewismaster (talk) 11:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

::I do agree that Sputnik is reliable, but I'm not sure about notability. The sources in the article and the ones that you found are very short passing mentions, mostly in articles or books that summarize an album or band's reception with critics and fans, or which namecheck music review websites. BuySomeApples (talk) 09:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

:::Considering that we are talking about a website which provides musical info and reviews, I think that it could also be important to know how much it is consulted, read and used as a source to determine its notability. I checked Sputnikmusic's web traffic with this free app [https://ahrefs.com/traffic-checker] and compared it with some of the websites listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Sputnikmusic's traffic amounts to 42,5K monthly accesses, which is very low in comparison with AllMusic or Rolling Stone, in the same range of Rock Hard and Metal Storm's websites and much higher than Uncut, Rock Sound, The Wire and Metal Forces'. Sputnikmusic is cited in about 400 articles on Wikipedia as a reliable source. Doesn't this fact alone make it notable? Lewismaster (talk) 08:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

::::{{tq|Doesn't this fact alone make it notable?}} No. For example, [http://jazzdisco.org jazzdisco.org] is a reliable, and frequently cited source, but fails WP:NWEB Mach61 (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

::::Ditto the above. A lot of websites, books and articles are reliable sources but aren't notable themselves. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Websites. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 12:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment While it is very little, there is some coverage of the website in the books, and I've added another.★Trekker (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm leaning keep, but had to trim some trivia. The section "Stratification and rating systems" needs heavy trimming. Geschichte (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:NPERIODICALS #4. I can find at least 30 scholarly books that cite this website. As I say every time a website like this is nominated, rarely do people write articles about niche, but reputable publications. That's why you always look for how often it is cited in its field, similar to WP:NPROFESSOR. Furthermore, I will always maintain that it is valuable for a reliable source used on hundreds of Wikipedia to have a page. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• :Keep I agree with this !vote by Why? I Ask. It is evident (and likely incontrovertible) that Sputnikmusic is both highly cited and reputable, and invoking WP:NPERIODICALS is valid. Sputnikmusic is evidently not an inconsequential website, and removing this article from the encyclopedia is, in my view, detrimental to the project. Furthermore we are in the business of presuming notability; being highly cited in secondary reputable sources is a very good indication, and in this case far better than trying to base notability on users trying to do increasingly flawed google searches which may, or may not, find requisite evidence. ResonantDis_tortion 23:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

:Keep per above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.