Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sputnikmusic (4th 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnikmusic

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no good sources from my search. Fails to be notable. All the included sources are minor passing mentions. Ca ^{talk to me!} 10:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ca ^{talk to me!} 10:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As mentioned in the nomination, there isn't any in-depth coverage in any high quality sources that I could find. It should be noted that Sputnikmusic is sometimes used as a source for critic reviews, for example in this paper. Of course, that does not constitute SIGCOV, and it's more so a matter for WP:RSN or WP:NPPSG. There is an argument to be made that this Metacritic profile of Sputnikmusic is in-depth, but it's unclear who wrote or published it (WP:UGC), and it only provides data, not analysis – ergo, not sigcov. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:BEFORE comes up empty on reliable independent sources. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2023 (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.