Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JoBlo.com


 * 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. No consensus to delete at this time. In addition, some of the delete comments focus not on WP:NOTE, but rather on complaints about perceived problems with the article itself - and AFD is not meant to be a form of article cleanup. -- Cirt (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

JoBlo.com

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not a notable website. It's only a self-published site that carries no official capacity. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per nom. Article has a history of poor edits with notablity, citation and nonstandard Wikipedia Manual of Style edits. It was nominated for a Speedy Delete in its past. Its website is not regulated like a standard award site like the Academy Awards. There is no oversight of the votes which basically means it is a fansite without an accounting firm to certify the votes. At this time it is not notable and should not be allowed to creep into other established articles. --Morenooso (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- Jack Merridew 01:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Though its use as RS might be argued, its usage by other sources such as MTV, Salon, Daily Times, Entertainment Weekly, Ireland Online, LaterCera (Spanish), Virgin Media, USA Today, Lenta (Russian), Pro UA (Russian), Europa Press (Spanish), El Comercio (Ecuador), Le Devoir (French), etc... as well as its use in multiple books, would seem to confirm its notability per WP:WEB. Any article might have a prior shakey history, such as it being once tagged for speedy (as JM Morenooso points out above) in 2006, or of previous failures to meet MOS guidelines... but such is a reason for improvement through regular editing and a watch eye... but not a deletion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per MQS (who may have misread the bits above his;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies JM. Struck that.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 16:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * no worries. Jack Merridew 19:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Same opinion as above. Improve, not delete. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - On several articles on film celebrities that I follow, anon IPs have tried to link its website as a citation or wikilink this article for supposed awards as if they compare with an Academy Award. That is where creep comes in. Other editors besides myself have removed these unsourced edits because there is no third party reliable source reporting its awards which are fan-based solely. As a Page Patroller, I backtracked an edit to this article which is why I am here. I have participated in AfD before. You allow this unregulated website to remain as an article and you will open the door for others. --Morenooso (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If a site is unsuitable as an RS, it need be handled the same way that we handle anyone trying to add Youtube or Myspace as a citation. I appreciate that finding it used as a citation might be frustrating, but if the subject meets notability through WP:WEB, it is suitable as an article, even if not suitable as a source.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * imdb.com is not a reliable source, and yet we have an article on it. Your intent seems to be to use a deletion here to undermine the use of this site in citations; or http://www.goldenschmoes.com/ No? Jack Merridew 19:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The bulk of the ghits cited above are trivial and fleeting references, which does not make it pass WP:WEB or WP:RS, while the overwhelming majority of books listed in the Google Book search have nothing to do with this site. Warrah (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - While IMDb is editor self-editted, it is more widely used and cited by others and appears in WP:RS publications and news casts. JoBlo.com does not have this notability as per the observation just above mine. It is fleeting at best and its votes cannot be reliably tracked or ascertained. In time, the site may gain notability or accountability. At the the present time, it has neither. --Morenooso (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2010 (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.