User talk:68.72.135.94

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:


 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to  [ create an account] . Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on this page. Again, welcome! -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hollywood Chicago site
A google search does not count as the sources. If you want the article created, go onto that search and specifically gather the sources, then repost your suggestion including those sources. Or, you may try Article requests. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Second attempt
Per your guidance, I have created a new article. Is this new article better?


 * Much better! Given about five minutes, that article will exist. Thank you very much! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 23:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I just checked and the new article for HollywoodChicago.com is all gone and only appears to redirect to the Chicago Film Critics Association. Why is it a redirect and why is the whole article gone? Are you looking for stories that instead write about the publication (like this and this?) --68.72.135.94 (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Other users threatened to delete it, and I don't know how else to stop them. When nothing else works, put the article into stasis; it's less likely to be executed that way. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Why was it threatened to be deleted? I clicked that stasis link and don't understand what to do there. Why would it be redirect to the Chicago Film Critics Association? That is a completely different organization and that doesn't make any sense to me.--68.72.135.94 (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * When an article's life is threatened, you do not waste time trying to figure out what's wrong with it. You redirect it to something it links to. CFCA was a link in the article, and since the name was similar, I redirected it to there. When you have redirected an article, then you may ask questions. One of the users did say this summary: . You should ask them what they mean, as I would not know. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (Wilhelmina Will, sorry to put you in middle on this.) 68.72.135.94, the article for HollywoodChicago.com is gone because at least two editor considered it not to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. (The first editor even though it met the criteria for speedy deletion) The general approach is that inclusion into the encyclopedia needs to be based on a consensus that a subject is notable and that the article is appropriate for an encyclopedia. It was redirected to Chicago Film Critics Association to avoid completely deleting the article.
 * All the "sources" cited in the original article were of reporting done BY HollywoodChicago.com. While that certainly demonstrates that the site is producing content, it does not demonstrate that the site itself is notable. (Imagine if I came to you with a hundred articles cut out of TIme magazine and asked you to write an article *about* Time magazine based on those articles... you could not do it.) Unless we could find sources talking about Time magazine, there would not be an article in Wikipedia about Time magazine.
 * You are getting the right idea with your two next links... we need links ABOUT the subject from reliable third-party source. Wikipedia, while far from perfect, aims to be an encyclopedia. The second link you provide currently results in a 404 Not Found error. I listened to the first link (written sources are probably preferable) and it is a start - there was at least a little discussion of the site and how it grew due to coverage of the Dark Knight. I still think this is a shaky basis for an article... you can certainly pursue this article, but my guess is that other editors will have a similar view. My recommendation is to focus on growing HollywoodChicago.com and not worry about your Wikipedia entry... once people start naturally talking about it... news coverage will follow... and other people will create this article at the appropriate time.--Marcinjeske (talk) 04:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This link works to the huge article on HollywoodChicago.com by The Movie Fanatic. Isn't that exactly what you're looking for? That's a huge, third-party profile on the publication. --216.177.119.154 (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The Movie-Fanatic source for HollywoodChicago.com

 * That's the link I was getting the 404 on... turns out it was missing the underscore between Adam and Fendelman.
 * So, yeah that link looks much more promising. But to quote from the movie fanatic interview:

"The credibility and prestige associated with online film reviewers is not as high as those in the print media. Do you agree with this notion?

That depends who you write for and how you’ve branded your personality with the masses. If you’re writing for an unknown outfit and you’re some random schmoe off the street, you wouldn’t be taken seriously because you haven’t earned it or been backed by an entity that has. Merely saying you write for the Chicago Tribune, for example – online or off – sets your quality bar. If you don’t have the benefit of a major outfit behind you, earning the respect, trust and credibility of your readers is a long and patient process. The payoff is entirely worth the journey. ... One of the best attributes of the Web is that anyone can spit out a new site in a matter of minutes. One of the worst attributes of the Web is that anyone can spit out a new site in a matter of minutes.


 * This article is a promising source because it is about the subject, and it is not by the subject. But is it a reliable third-party source? All the evidence I can find indicates that The Movie-Fanatic is essentially a collaborative blog about movies, and the site itself considers itself a blog. As a self-published source, this weakens it. From the current front page:

In the case of LAMB (The Large Association of Movie Blogs), it was less than 6 months ago that The Movie Fanatic became it's 22nd member.
 * It is also unclear who wrote conducted the interview... and statements like this:

"one of the Web’s most important film review and entertainment sites" (referring to HollywoodChicago.com)


 * make me question whether The Movie-Fanatic is a reliable source for Wikipedia especially as the only source establishing notability for another very similar website.


 * I think any evidence for notability is weak and I think other editors will agree, but you do not have to take my word for it.


 * You can take User:Wilhelmina Will's advice and keep it "parked" and pointing at the Critics Association... hoping it can be recreated it later when nobody notices.
 * We can restore the article, along with my proposed for deletion flag... which leaves it up to to some other editor (not me) or an admin to decide what to do with it. I would prefer this option.
 * We can restore the article, I will place a Articles for deletion tag on it, and a debate will be opened on whether this subject is appropriate for Wikipedia at this time. This means we all get to spend more time talking about this.
 * What would you prefer?--Marcinjeske (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand and can respect your due diligence here. I just frankly don't understand why this is so complicated and why there is so much resistance. I think the full article should be published. These are the top-level reasons this article should be on Wikipedia:


 * The publication is published by an accredited, long-standing and experienced journalist with thousands of published articles easily found all over the Web.
 * The publication has been cited in countless cases of third-party news by major publications all over the world.
 * The publisher and the publication is approved at the Tomatometer at Rotten Tomatoes.
 * The publication is an approved publisher of content at Google News.
 * The publication has been written about by third-party sources. Whether or not you view them to be "important" enough is a matter of opinion. Either way, I think it says even more about the credibility of a publication when, for example, the Los Angeles Times and USA Today deem its reputation good enough to cite in its own news report.
 * The publication is syndicated by a top 100 Internet entertainment company (Starpulse.com).
 * The publisher (Adam Fendelman) has even been interviewed by the New York Times (see here), which surely helps to establish his reputation and credibility.

I'm sure there are many more reasons why, but isn't that more than enough? That has got to be enough to establish notoriety. --216.177.119.154 (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability and Verifiability
The key questions are is it notable and the information in it verifiable? The reason there is "resistance" is that the case is weak on both grounds. With the possible exception of: I can find no third-party reliable coverage (and I don't think those two are what WP:SOURCES has in mind). The NYTimes article you cite is not about HollywoodChicago.com, not about Mr. Fendelman, but about speed networking, and it quoted Mr. Fendelman in relation to eXtreme Networking. Heck, I have been quoted by several major city print newspapers in my lifetime - even got my picture in the front of a section - doesn't mean I am notable for a Wikipedia article. All this "approval" and syndication is in regards to content FROM HollywoodChicago.com. Even if the Pope forwarded everyone in the world an article about Batman written from HC.com.... that would not make HC.com notable for wikipedia's purposes until a reliable soruce actually documented HC.com. I hope I am making that distinction clear. Please understand that it is not a matter of disbelieving these claims, but we have no way to WP:VERIFY them:
 * the radio interview (I listened to it, you could not write much about the site based on it) and
 * the blog interview ("one of the Web’s most important film review and entertainment sites"),
 * Notability of Mr. Fendelman does not automatically transfer to HC.com, but how do we know he is: "an accredited, long-standing and experienced journalist"?
 * All these references to who uses HC.com are missing the point... we need information from reliable sources ABOUT HC.com. If any of you are from HC.com, I hope that as journalists you can understand why information just can't be entered into an encyclopedia just because it might be true. What if I told you I run an underground network of billionaires who fight crime? You might doubt it, even if I showed you my blog, and it listed on Google. You would ask... are there publicly available records of your crime fighting? (Yes, silly example... oh well.) If you follow those WP: links I mention, you will get much better reasoning than I can type out now.

Anyway, since there is obviously dispute about this article, it is clearly no longer appropriate for my original Proposed Deletion. I will recreate the article with what reasonably can be inferred from the provided sources, and tag it with Articles for Discussion, which will start the wheel of getting the opinion of other editors. Merry tax day to all of you in the US! --Marcinjeske (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Scratch that last bit about the AfD... in the process of creating the AfD, I found that this article was the subject of an debate just a few months ago... nothing has changed to address those issues or those here Articles_for_deletion/Adam_Fendelman... you have just wasted all of our time. --Marcinjeske (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)