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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discogs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

There is only one source for any of the content in this article: the discogs website and forums. The creator of the site is the most cited source. Guy (Help!) 10:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Long established, very well-known database with high volume of traffic. WP:ATD Keristrasza (talk) 11:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Adding this article to the log for the first time (as far as I can tell) on 20 September. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no non-trivial sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Weak keep if it's the largest, why aren't there more sources? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:WEB and WP:GNG. this one paragraph discussion is the only source I could find, and it's in Spanish! Bigger digger (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to keep. I was looking for an excuse to swap. Per the additional book note below, I think there's sufficient basis for me to call this notable. It ranks higher than the en.wp article for a "discography" Google search, which can suggest the strength of sites linking to it. WP:WEB also suggests "Google sitelinks also provide evidence of site importance and credibility." and this seems to apply here. Not the strongest grounds for a keep, but if a site is useful enough for wp to regularly use as a source, has some sourcing and can meet part of a notability guideline then that's 3 reasons... Bigger digger (talk) 11:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment AFD was open since the 9th but AFD template was never placed on the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Keristrasza. One of the biggest music databases around, with significant history. Also used through {{Discogs}}. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I found a few relatively minor GBooks hits for it - including this one that says its the "...largest online database of vinyl discs and one of the largest online databases of electronic music releases". I realise that as far as significant coverage goes this is slim, but I feel sure there's more out there, and we could let it go with a refimprove tag for now. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's the largest database of this kind for vinyl, that alone makes it notable. Here's the ref for that claim. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article does need improved, but the basis of the article is factual. More citations can be added, some of the sources are already listed here. Discogs has it's own Wikipedia template used on many artist articles.Record collector 1000 (talk) 08:23, 24 September 2010 (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.