Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Movie Smackdown


 * 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. (non-admin closure) —— RyanLupin • (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Movie Smackdown

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

nn website, alexa rank 1169830. Dow30down (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep- while the site itself may scrape by on notability, the concept is very much key to the Web 2.0 movement, and the article seems to be well researched with good sourcing and a neutral tone.  L'Aquatique [ approves | this | message ] 22:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I should mention that this was originally a CSD spam candidate, I declined it then and invited the author to add notability information, which (s)he did.  L'Aquatique [ approves | this | message ] 22:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Thank you for the chance to discuss this. While I believe strongly in Wikipedia's mission and support the concept of reducing overtly promotional material, I don't believe that is the case here.  As a new user to Wiki, I've put a very substantial amount of work into this (particularly the idea of meeting the "notability" and other criteria) because this seems like a topic that is very much cutting edge.  Based on the research quoted in this article (from the LA Times, Daily Variety, Hollywood Reporter, New York Times, etc.), the days of the print movie critic are fast coming to an end and this Movie Smackdown site seems to be quite representative of the counter-trend.  I've been making (and will continue to make) efforts to clarify how this topic is newsworthy and emblematic of an entire trend in film reviews.  I'd ask those who will make this decision to look at other Wiki articles for web reviews like "Rotten Tomatoes" and "Metacritic"  by way of comparison.  It seems that the Movie Smackdown page is at least equal and in many case  better in a number of key ways.  It is also unique: there are content aggregators like the former, and there are film collectives like Movie Smackdown, but in almost all cases they use the old formula of a critic (even if not a well-known print critic) talking about a single film.  This is, to the best of my knowledge, the only film review site or concept where a collective of critics actually approach film criticism in a specific new way where they all adhere to a specific unique format and submit to editing.  In any case, this article is meant to be thoughtful and neutral about the concept of the democratization of film reviews in the Internet age.  Of course, it can be improved (and will be) as other voices join in the editing process.  If this concept doesn't meet the standards, I'm sort of confused as I've seen dozens and dozens of Wiki articles that seem less-researched and clearly self-serving but, again, I'm new to Wiki and may not be understanding the entire picture.  Anyway, thanks again for listening, and considering this point-of-view.  Ablebaker2 (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Movies -- like popular culture -- make sense of a confusing world for me. In this regard Movie Smackdown! is especially effective, because it operates on a level that is easily accessible to all: The simple comparison. This format offers a helpful frame of reference for judging a new film by showing how it stacks up with a similar, earlier release known to most readers. This focus develops a better understanding of the film maker's intent. The Smackdown! structure transforms the movies into cinematic gladiators. Only one emerges the winner and this approach puts readers on a fun ride. It also provides insights into the critics' artistic vision. I'm a longtime visitor to this site and noticed how it has evolved into a unique and valuable resource for film audiences. By personal experience I've learned it's not necessary to see the films to enjoy Movie Smackdown! I'm not alone: The creator displays a site meter tracking unbroken growth in monthly visits. Pusster1 02:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pusster1 (talk • contribs)


 * Just saw this brouhaha, read the page, looked at the site. If something this well-researched and annotated doesn't qualify for a page, then you should be taking down all kinds of other ones.  I actually enjoyed reading the articles it referred to, it hadn't fully occurred to me that film reviews were dying on the newspapers and migrating to the Web.  Well, you're the experts, but I say KEEP IT.  Chickflix (talk) 02:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Is this site unique enough to warrant comment?  Does it represent something worthy of comment?  I'd have to say that, especially for film buffs and anybody on the Internet, you'd have to say "yes."  So I'm thinking, yeah, it's a keeper.  Plus, I agree with above.  It's got some good info in it, arranged well and with all the footnote stuff.  Loengard (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - This article should not even be considered for deletion in my opinion. It clearly meets the "notability" criteria (the notability challenge was even met by the author). I checked the site out and it does generate a significant amount of repeat traffic. The reviews are well written, concise, and relevant. Just because they aren't written by celebrated critics (at least not yet) shouldn't render them not-noteworthy. Something that is considered note-worthy has to start somewhere and I truly believe that this website has met that mininum threshold. It can only grow from here and deserves an entry for the continuation of that journey. Also, as the referenced articles state, movie goers are shifting over to reading reviews on the web and Movie Smackdown is obviously a stopping point for many of these readers. The site meter shows this as the number of page views are dramatically on the rise.  Lastly, this website offers reviews just as good as (if not better than) websites such as Rotten Tomatoes and does so in a unique and refreshing way. This, to me, is Movie Smackdown's main draw and I believe is sufficient in itself to warrant a Wiki mention.Walkingbillboard (talk) 08:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete A large section of this article is an WP:OR essay on the nature and change of modern film criticism. While interesting it has no place in this article, which should be a well-sourced piece on the website in question. The only independent reference that makes specific mention of Movie Smackdown is as AMC site of the week which appeared on their blog. None of the 3 possible criteria to pass WP:WEB have been met, i.e. no multiple non-trivial references, no awards, no replication of content by respected 3rd parties. Tassedethe (talk) 08:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep looks encyclopaedic WikiScrubber (talk) 09:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  13:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  13:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. As the article is tagged as in "Expansion or revamping", I'm sure anything that seems like OR will be removed or properly cited. Nice article. Interesting. Informative. Glad that  L'Aquatique encourgaed its author to improve it.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 15:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Change is inevitable. When thinking about the current status of the motion picture industry, two changes that are occurring involve "who" is making the film and "who" is reviewing it.

Years ago Francis Ford Coppola was asked about the impact of high-quality, affordable digital cameras and what effect they would have on Hollywood. He responded by saying that some day, in the not too distant future, "Some little fat girl from Ohio" will win an Oscar. (This is probably not his exact words -- but it is awful close and it reflects accurately the point he was trying to make). Yes, films are now being made by a lot more people than just the established industry "names" and many are both excellent and commercially viable.

Likewise, film commentary, criticism and the old fashioned "movie review" are now available on websites and over the internet in great numbers. A few of these are truly unique, with Movie Smackdown being one of the most notable. Traditional newspaper and magazine reviews are still available, but, for the vast majority of film goers, they now get their information off the internet -- especially those of the MTV Generation (and younger) which constitutes by far the largest number of individuals who purchase theater tickets. And what they want when they read a review is intelligent discussion in a fun/entertaining format and they want a review that is reasonably short and to the point. That is exactly what Movie Smackdown does -- I am unaware of anyone else doing this in the same manner.

On occasion, Movie Smackdown will actually have two or maybe even three "Smackdowns" between a current release and a film classic it is being compared to that are written by different contributors. This, too, is unique, and it adds an additional layer not found elsewhere.

Clearly the changing landscape and the unique niche Movie Smackdown occupies within this arena should make it a worthy Wikipedia entry. Yes, I say "KEEP" -- and I do so without reservation.

--CineTex (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2008 (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.