Talk:Ain't It Cool News

NPOV
Just wondering why my changes on Harry-related controversies were backed out with a "NPOV" comment. I have nothing against Harry personally, but he is quite a controversial figure, and I provided facts and sources for everything I wrote. I'd prefer to see more info be added, or even have it reprased, rather than simply having my material deleted. The reason I added the material in the first place was that I came to this page to check out the controversy, and found only a slight, unreferenced mention, and I wanted to add the results of my own research into it.

--Misterwindupbird 23:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The link to the coming attractions article remains, so the material is still there for anyone who follows the link. the addition of the removed text pushed the article too much into "anti-AICN" territory, so to keep balance (i.e. NPOV) it was removed. Niz 11:03, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I added some of the material back in, and tried to keep it short and neutral. I think we need to address some of the factual, documented sources of controversy in addition to, or instead of, the rumours. Citing unsourced rumours without any evidence smacks of innuendo, and it's what lead me to try to add factual info in the first place. Also, labelling CA a "rival" site sounds kind of dismissive to me (and it's not strictly true). --Misterwindupbird 16:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * changed "rival" to "another movie" (should be mentioned so readers are aware its POV)... i suggest a separate section called "controversies" or something to discuss the various allegations in more detail, but please also include AICN's defenses also. Niz 17:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"It is widely read by powerful Hollywood players as well as the general public." Is it really read by "Powerful Hollyood players" anymore? I mean, who are we kidding here. You don't see stuff like this in the descriptions of Rotten Tomatoes, or other movie based sites. It sounds like a pointless claim to me, because it can't really be proven and it has no place in an article that is supposed to be neutral. The part about the general public is really not needed either as any site on the web can claim this, so it isn't much of a statement. Vaginsh 14:57, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.

There is anecdotal evidence from the site's moderators that Hollywood players do read the site, but there is definite evidence that at least one, namely Bruce Willis reads the site and participates in the talkbacks: http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Guardian/0,,2096613,00.html Can we include this? ConorHession 17:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Issues
I removed the external links until there can be some verifiable sources on the "Controversy" section. Add refs and I will add them back --Nick Catalano contrib talk 17:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Talkbacks and Forum
Took that section out because there is nothing relevant about the site having userfeed back or forums. You can't swing a dead cat on the internet without having these things and they are not focused upon on other site descriptions. The text I removed seemed to serve no purpose other than to pad out the article. There was nothing special, interesting, or insightful about the information I deleted. Vaginsh (talk) 10:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability
The notability of this subject has not been established. Could someone please explain why this web site is notable? --Kraftlos (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not remove the notability tags from this page. You may remove the notability tags after you have established notability with reliable third-party sources, otherwise the tag must remain on the page.  I've been asking since august what makes this site notable and not one person has stepped up to the task.  As I said in my edit, Popularity ≠ Notability.  --Kraftlos (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Just because your Asperger's encrusted cumstain of a life doesn't deem it not notable doesn't mean it ain't! - Quint —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.9.129 (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The site is nationally recognized by various print and television media. A television series was even in the works at one point. When laypeople think of internet movie sites, AICN is usually what they are thinking of. I'll be happy to provide links to articles and publications that discuss the web site, but obviously that will take some time. RS (talk) 04:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

After some research and consideration, I find it advisable to make this article a stub which allows for future expansion. I think AICN is notable enough to warrant some mention in Wikipedia, certainly as notable if not more notable than some other film web sites currently with entries, but I will agree that there is currently not enough content on the AICN page to warrant anything beyond stub status. I will try to firm up the page a bit over the next few weeks, but I do not predict being able (or frankly willing) to bring this entry up to full article status. I am going to go ahead and make the article a stub which should appease anyone who questioned the article's validity in the first place. It will give opportunity to people to add to the page in the future but also provide relevant information to anyone researching what AICN is and its connection to Harry Knowles (and others). RS (talk) 07:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

AICN Contributors?
Just thought it might be worthwhile to list contributors to the site, with a possible bio for each. People like Massawyrm, Capone, The Kidd, and others. I've come here looking for information on some (like Massawyrm) as to why they no longer write for AICN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.56.109 (talk) 09:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The Kickstarter discussion
The site has launched an appeal for $100,000 US to have a TV show. The thread discussing this appeal has topped 15,500 comments, many of them detailing the history of AICN, the personalities, the discussions (Talkbacks), and Knowles' business practices. It's pretty vitriolic but worth reviewing. http://www.aintitcool.com/node/63591 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.172.230 (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ain't It Cool News. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100811003526/http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/07/okay_kids_play_on_my_lawn.html to http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/07/okay_kids_play_on_my_lawn.html
 * Added tag to http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/entertainment/film-tv/news/lights-camera-action-hero-13454807.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ain't It Cool News. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205071717/http://mediasoundoff.com/episodes/mso-004-aint-it-cool-news-harry-knowles to http://mediasoundoff.com/episodes/mso-004-aint-it-cool-news-harry-knowles

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Harry Knowles
This article has a whole lot of information about the allegations against Harry Knowles, but this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia article about the website Ain't It Cool News. The allegations against Knowles are only relevant to the website in so far as they resulted in the loss of various contributors and the further decline in the site. The allegations are already covered and in much more detail in the article Harry Knowles, it would be better if there was a whole lot less of it in this article. If anyone disagrees then please comment, or if you agree please go ahead and trim back the unnecessary details. If no one else does it I'll come back around to this eventually and trim the section myself. -- 109.78.204.175 (talk) 03:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added a link to
 * which I think is an improvement. The redundant duplication can be trimmed later.
 * The referencing style in the section is unclear, there seem to be a few things that should be removed because they aren't properly sourced. That's all for now though. -- 109.78.204.175 (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In case anyone might have any comments I had planned to wait and leave it for days or weeks and come back to it later, but I changed my mind and decided to just get on with it. I summarized the section down to 3 paragraphs. Maybe it could be summarized even further but I think this cuts out a lot of details that do not relate specifically to the website Ain't It Cool News which is what this article is supposed to be about. -- 109.79.173.253 (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)