Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cinema Blend


 * 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   delete. SarahStierch (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Cinema Blend

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An unremarkable website, one of an untold number that comments about movies. The article's references circle back to the website; the one non-Cinema Blend reference is to a blog that appears offline. I don't see much here that meets WP:GNG standards. And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  22:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong delete fails to provide any specific claims of notability supported by secondary sources. There are only references from the official website with one broken link. Also, fails to meet GNG as I couldn't be able to find any publication with this entity as a main topic. Furthermore, fails to meet WP:WEBCRIT. Hence, the article exists purely as an advertisment.  Alex discussion ★ 02:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment According to the article, the site was launched in 2001. It's been noted by others, http://www.examiner.com/article/cast-and-director-marc-webb-break-down-the-amazing-spider-man-2-trailer although that fact obviously doesn't equate to meeting the notability requirements. -- Trevj (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply to comment - The Slate citation is merely a reposting of a video that was on Cinema Blend. Examiner.com is a self-publishing site, and I don't think FilmEquals.com is a reliable site, as per Wikipedia requirements. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Examiner.com is blacklisted. The other sites didn't strike me as being especially reliable but I thought they might be worth noting, as a record of the (poor) quality of references found. Maybe some better ones will be unearthed, but it seems as if that's not very likely. -- Trevj (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. I fixed the ref to amctv.com.  The editor, Josh Tyler, got some notoriety for comments characterized as sexist by Comics Beat and Publisher's Weekly, but that seems to be more about the founder than his site. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The Examiner is not a reliable source, nor is an AMC blog. -- Whpq (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEBCRIT. We've all searched for sources and found them to be insufficient to demonstrate notability. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 21:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.