User talk:Marcinjeske/HC

Please also refer to Articles for deletion/HollywoodChicago.com, Articles for deletion/Adam Fendelman, Suspected sock puppets/AdamFendelman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcinjeske (talk • contribs) 07:57, 17 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)

Added articles ABOUT the publication
Thank you for the helpful and clearer explanation. I have updated the article with the comprehensive interview from The Movie Fanatic ABOUT HollywoodChicago.com as well as the radio broadcast ABOUT HollywoodChicago.com. The Movie Fanatic currently shows a Google PageRank of 3/10, so that's a legit site by Google's standards. By my count, that article is nearly 3,000 words in length, which can certainly be considered comprehensive coverage about HollywoodChicago.com. HollywoodChicago.com, by the way, currently shows a Google PageRank of 4/10. --216.177.119.154 (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is more. HollywoodChicago.com was also covered on Spout.com and published its film festival coverage there. Spout.com has a much higher Google PageRank of 6/10, which vouches for the credibility of HollywoodChicago.com. --216.177.119.154 (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I am glad my explanation could help. The Spout posting is again, a blog entry which fails WP:SPS and regardless has no information... it is just a notice that HC.com content will be posted to the Spout blog during the film festival. Google PageRanks are completely irrelevant to inclusion into Wikipedia... Google PageRanks are only relevant for inclusion in Google (and perhaps street cred if you live in that kind of neighborhood). The two interviews are your strongest point, yet it is weak... i suspect that very little of what the article currently say is supportable by those sources. Further, I seriously question how reliable interviews can be... even though they may be conducted by third-parties, they are fundamentally the subject speaking about themselves?

At this point, my view is no longer relevant... I will ensure that the process is followed, but further judgments will rest with the admin or editors who respond to the deletion proposal. (Do not delete the tags!) Feel free to edit the article if you think you can make it better. --Marcinjeske (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. This learning is not only helping for this article but for adding to Wikipedia in general. I am getting a good sense of what NOT to do, though, but not getting as good of a sense what TO do. Could you give me a couple clear examples (even if they don't exist for this particular article) of what would make it stronger? --68.72.135.94 (talk) 06:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The whole article is gone?
I just checked and the whole article is gone with no explanation. I thought we were making progress on improving this? What can be done here? Just deleting it outright like this doesn't seem right. --68.72.135.94 (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been offline taking care of my taxes.... let's see.... checking the page... there is a clear explanation:

Notice: You are re-creating a page that was deleted. You should consider whether it is appropriate to continue editing this page. Information is available on what to do if a page you created is deleted. The deletion log for this page is provided here for convenience: 00:53, 16 April 2008 Athaenara (Talk | contribs) deleted "HollywoodChicago.com" Per Articles for deletion/HollywoodChicago.com consensus. 11:38, 16 October 2007 Mailer diablo (Talk | contribs) deleted "HollywoodChicago.com" Articles for deletion/HollywoodChicago.com 17:57, 3 May 2007 TwinsMetsFan (Talk | contribs) deleted "HollywoodChicago.com" ‎ (content was: 'db-web Run by Chicago journalist, editor and publisher Adam Fendelman, HollywoodChicago.com publishes original f...')


 * I do note however, that under some cases a reader does not see this information... which could be why you did not notice... I will bring the issue of including the information for all readers up to the proper persons.

Translation: a Wikipedia administrator came along and deleted based on the current state of the article, expected future potential, the discussion available, and the past history of the article. Really, the best thing that supporters of HC.com can do is focus on HC.com and stop trying to create Wikipedia entries. If you put your energy into making HC.com a great site, eventually notability of the site will naturally evolve, solid reliable third-party sources will appear, and people completely disconnected with HC.com will write the article. That is how Wikipedia works.

68.72.135.94 is a DSL connection at chcgil.ameritech.net which is a Chicago ISP 216.177.119.154 is at anet.com which is ANet Internet Services in Naperville, IL

Let someone is not a fan of the site write the entry when it is time to right the entry, not prematurely. WP:RS says: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." My recommendation is to wait until you have these kinds of publications. Look at Mtvnews.com - that has barely enough references to support notability, and that is a giant compared to HC.com. - Perezhilton.com does not have its own entry, not notable enough on its own... it gets redirected to Perez Hilton, the site creator who has gotten a lot of coverage in the press Perez Hilton. --Marcinjeske (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(cur) (last) 19:20, 16 April 2008 Wilhelmina Will (Talk | contribs) (47 bytes) (←Redirected page to Chicago Film Critics Association) (undo) (cur) (last) 19:11, 16 April 2008 Geniac (Talk | contribs) (52 bytes) (db-rediruser) (undo) (cur) (last) 17:30, 16 April 2008 Wilhelmina Will (Talk | contribs) (35 bytes) (←Redirected page to User:Wilhelmina Will) I see that as of now, the article has again been created by Wilhelmina Will as a redirect. Seeing as this article has been the subject of repeated deletions, that is wildly inappropriate. I cannot in procedure make further edits to the page, but I will bring this to the attention of other editors.--Marcinjeske (talk) 07:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)