Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music magazine

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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music magazine

After I deleted some spam from the article, this basically becomes a dictionary definition of what a music magazine is. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Redfarmer (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary.Undeath (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a valid stub, and I do see the direction this article could take in its expansion. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Blanchardb, could clearly be expanded well beyond a dictionary definition. Jfire (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Blanchardb and Jfire. Has potential for expansion. Sting au Buzz Me... 06:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is potentially expandable to a decent article, a legitimate stub. I'll have a look at it. --Canley (talk) 08:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. although I agree with the basic arguments of the keepers in this case, I should point out that ~~most~~ all of this user's contributions are up for afd as WP:Spam astroturf and are fairing poorly in those discussions. I find myself wondering if this article will not, at some point in the near future, suddenly morph into something similar. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Also note (above) that Redfarmer deleted a bunch of spam from this article before he afd'd it. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Solidifying my remarks to Delete unless someone really cares enough in the next few days to give this thing a new life as something substantially other than the spamboard it was created as.~~--Pgagnon999 (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Nice job Canley; I'm upgrading to Keep. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Reserving judgement~~ Maybe it's a lack of imagination on my part, but I don't see this as developing beyond a dicdef at best, and a linkfarm at worst. I would have to see some improvement in the article before I could sign off as a keep -- RoninBK _{T C} 19:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good start. I'm still concerned that this is still a pretty tasty linkspam target, especially by slipping slight blurbs into the "Notable music magazines" section. That being noted however, I can live with a Keep -- RoninBK _{T C} 10:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Currently a dictionary definition. No-one who has edited the article so far seems to have the interest or the ability to improve the article towards a survivable state. The theoretical possibility that someone (who isn't here yet) might one day improve it doesn't seem worth waiting around for. Blanchardb, who voted above, does seem to have an idea, and if he intends to work on the article I might reconsider my vote. EdJohnston (talk) 06:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to Keep based on Canley's improvements. EdJohnston (talk) 05:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've expanded the article a bit beyond a dictionary definition and hopefully to create a bit of a framework for further improvement, expansion and referencing. --Canley (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's exactly the kind of improvement I was hoping for. Being unknowledgeable in this matter, I could not have made those improvements myself. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sure, it's just a dic-def now, but it seems like a lot of people have taken interest in improving the microscopic stub that I created ages ago. I think that with time, it can become a much better article. Eyeball kid (talk) 00:10, 2 February 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.