Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet Movie Firearms Database


 * 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 keep. Michig (talk) 06:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Internet Movie Firearms Database

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wiki which identifies guns used in movie. Passing mentions in a few news articles. Fails WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Field & Stream is a reliable source which covers the subject in detail. The Guardian only gives passing mention towards it.  Something Awful has one of their editors reviewing it.  The Los Angeles Times has a full article about it.    D r e a m Focus  08:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dream Focus. I've seen more WP:RSes (as I frequent the site and they sometimes post about articles about themselves) but I can't find them as Google News hates me. Ansh666 09:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * On the right side side of their main page they list "in the news".  I didn't notice that before.  I just did a regular Google search and looked through anything that seemed like a reliable site until I found a few good ones and then stopped looking for any more.   D r e a m Focus  15:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - We've been through this before and the article has been rebuilt into a form that is far better than many lesser articles that do not receive the kind of scrutiny that anything firearm related does. Furthermore, I've lost track of the number of tv shows that reference the site as their "go to source" for all things movie gun related. If the entertainment industry uses it so widely, its notable. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That isn't what makes something notable on WP. And this has absolutely nothing to do with the subject being gun-related. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep It also worth noting that if you Google just about any movie title with the word 'guns' or 'firearms' this is the first site that comes up. My point being is indexed very highly by Google. Seems to me that makes it worth mentioning. It should also be noted that this really is an widely used industry tool. --Zackmann08 (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Google position is not how we judge notability. By the way, I have added the "connected contributor" template to the article's talk page, since you state that you are "the Chief of Operations at IMFDB". You should probably read WP:COI again. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per coverage in independent reliable sources and per shown WP:USEBYOTHERS. Quite nice that a Wiki is being so widely accepted. Only makes sense that we speak about it here as well.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 18:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Appears to be widely used by the industry. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per sourcing found by Dream Focus (I suspect there's more given I've seen more than a few passing mentioned to it lately), but please make sure those sources identified get into the article ASAP, as the current reflist is woefully failing GNG. --M ASEM (t) 16:07, 18 September 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.