Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FilmCrave


 * 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 (WP:NPASR). 1½ votes for deletion other than the nominator = WP:NOQUORUM. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 09:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

FilmCrave

 * – ( View AfD View log )



Refunded PROD. Orig reason was non-notable website, Significant coverage does not exist on this "online movie social network" to pass WP:GNG Mt  king  (edits)  09:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What kind of notable sources are needed for this kind of website? Entries like Flickchart seem to have similar information and similar sources but was created much more recent. I don't want that site removed either. FilmCrave could be set up in similar fashion to FlickChart and other entries like it to ensure it is a legitimate entry, as it is. Please let me know as I will do what is needed to ensure stabilization.Heartiscontentious (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, does not rise above the level of a directory entry. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not persuasive. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This article should not be deleted. It can be improved. Give me time to improve it with reliable sources, references from other wikis and the like. The entry has been up for several years. It can and should be saved.Heartiscontentious (talk) 03:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Modified page to only include relevant information, sources for virtually every sentence, and info bar. Now, additional articles need to link to the FilmCrave wiki entry.Heartiscontentious (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC) I wanted to add in my name as requiredHeartiscontentious (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)




 * Weak delete. The JournalStar is independent coverage, but only local coverage, and it's the only such coverage in the article.  The Mashable award seems borderline, since Mashable itself is notable, but the award is just one of 13 "Judge's Choice" awards given 1 year, which, as the article describes, is simply a vote taken by 30 blog partners of Mashable.  Everything else listed as a ref is directory style (ICANN, Alexa (note how low the Alexa ranking is, too), etc.) or press releases.  This is borderline, so if there were even one more decent source, it would be enough to keep. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Added additional reliable sources. Should be good to Save. Heartiscontentious (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Another editor removed one as non-RS and I just removed VentureBeat (it's a blog, so not RS). The three remaining all mention Filmcraze only briefly in a much longer list of "social networks for film buffs", or, even worse, "21 sites to go to when you're bored of Facebook".  I'm not convinced that any of these rise to the requirement of "detailed discussion".   However, I'm still really on the edge here...if other editors and/or the closing admin decide that collectively these multiple small mentions add up to enough to establish notability, I'm okay with that.  Qwyrxian (talk) 01:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * VentureBeat Is a news blog, just like TechCrunch, which is a reliable source. The writers from that site are former writers for WSJ, LA Times, and other legitimate sources. It seems that your choice to remove the blog was subjective. VentureBeat has over 600 different wiki entries linking to it. It puts on Demo, a leading technology launch conference. I don't understand how it is not a legitimate news source. TheNextWeb even discusses VentureBeat as a legitimate news organization (http://thenextweb.com/video/2011/01/27/how-to-go-from-lone-blogger-to-news-organization-venturebeat/). There are several other independent blogs that I could reference as sources, but it seems as though you are looking for only if a website has an in depth reference from an old news site, such as a dieing major newspaper or failing entertainment magazine. There are sources from one of the biggest technology blogs on the planet in mashable (several articles, mentions and awards), major mentions in news sites such as CNET, Switched, and an in depth article on VentureBeat. This isn't some hack website, it has major coverage is a legitimate movie site. Save — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heartiscontentious (talk • contribs) 02:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Reasons for deletion seems very subjective. No cited sources or reliable information given to prove non-RS. Definition of a reliable news source is subjective, needs citations to prove one way or another. Mashable did indeed hold an actual awards event in the Palace Hotel in San Fransisco, CA on Jan 10th, 2008. Award winners accepted their awards in person, including google, espn, facebook, digg, etc. Not sure why Mashable is not a reliable source? Please cite sources stating that they are not a reliable source. Same holds true for VentureBeat. VentureBeat is a well known site with many entries on wiki. Please site specific sources showing it is not reliable. Subjective reasoning for deletion should not be considered. FilmCrave page appears to have just as many citations as other listed film websites / film review websites. --WalkerStang (talk) 03:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC) — WalkerStang (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * That's not how WP:RS works; we don't have to cite a source to show another source is unreliable. I could be wrong on VentureBeat, but that discussion would be done by our guidelines, not by finding some source to prove it one way or the other.  Qwyrxian (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Citations drive this site. Mashable on wiki is classified as an American news website with primary focus on social media news. This wiki page is in good standing, not marked for deletion.  Therefore the claim of Mashable being non-RS is an opinion, not fact.  VentureBeat on wiki states many notable editors formally from the largest news agencies in the world.  This information must also be fact, since the wiki page is in good standing and is not marked for deletion.  Therefore the claim that VentureBeat being non-RS is an opinion, not fact. --WalkerStang (talk) 04:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not work that way. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 04:43, 27 September 2011 (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.