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 no consensus. Maxim(talk) 14:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems promotional. Renee (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree - slight bias. I've removed some of the unneccesary stuff from 'site features' so it's more neutral. There was also two references to Future's magazines, one of which I've removed. Don't see any reason to delete though - 40,000 registered users in 3 months is significant. 212.113.198.67 (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any notable mentions of it. It appears to be a run-of-the-mill music website in many ways. Gary King (talk) 07:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a major venture by the one of the largest publishing houses in the UK and there's plenty of stuff about it on Google. It's also a huge site. It has many Digg and Stumbleupon entries and 40,000 users. The Alexa rank is low but is probably because it's a new site. What would count as a notable mention? Also, if it's run-of-the-mill site, what other sites are there like it on the net?Tentacle (talk) 11:28, 11 March 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.