Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Movie Smackdown (2nd nomination)


 * 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 as overturned non-admin snowball keep of previous AfD.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Movie Smackdown
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Most of the discussion of the page is written as an advertisement for the website. For example, the first sentence of "Concept" states "The Movie Smackdown concept is based on the premise that to succeed in the Internet age, film reviews need to be more fun and more surprising. They need to be, whenever possible, as entertaining as the films they seek to criticize or praise".

A large chunk of this page has very little to do with the website itself. For example, "Evolution (and Revolution) in Film Criticism" has nothing to do with Move Smackdown itself. Rather, it just comes across as an essay on film criticism in itself.

This was nominated for deletion before (obviously). One of the "Keep Votes" (User:CineTex) is obviously a single-purpose account: all four of his edits deal with Movie Smackdown, and his "Keep" vote was a large impassioned essay. Another "Keep" vote, from User:Walkingbillboard, also made all of his edits on the deletion page. Yet another "Keep" vote, from User:Pusster1 made his sole edit on this page. Another Keep Edit, User:Chickflix made their first edit on this page, and the rest of their edits were on the page for Bryce Zabel, the creator of this website. Did anyone look into this at all when making their consensus? CyberGhostface (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The article could be re-tooled to focus on the concept rather than the website, which sort of seems to be the direction it is taking. It's still spammy, true - but the previous AfD closed as a firm Keep only five days ago. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 13:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Do you think that Keep wasn't helped by all the single-purpose accounts I mentioned?--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It's obvious that it was, but the proper place to dispute an AfD would be Deletion Review. Of course, Deletion Review would say "Fine, re-nominate", which you did, so it's a non-issue. I mentioned it because I knew the question would come up. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 14:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry, you're right. I just assumed that "Deletion Review" was for articles that were deleted, not for ones that passed but I see that it goes both ways.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  13:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No real reliable sources about the site itself and plenty of coatrack material to boot. This is a valid relist, as I feel the last one was improperly closed. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 14:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete it's spam for the website (although maybe unintentional) this fails the required notability and verifiability levels for inclusion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OhMyGod that last AfD was terrible. One spa, Two spa, Three spa, Four spa who blanked the Afd, Five spa. The main contributer is spamming other pages with link to this site. And I have no idea what was running through RyanLupin's mind when he did a snowball keep. Delete and keep your eyes open for any spas. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I hate to play the Devil's Advocate here, but the blanking was of the discussion's talk page because the user put his opinion there first.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply, yes but it was still an SPA acting unusually, the AfD should not have been closed as a keep. Darrenhusted (talk)
 * Oh, I'm not doubting that part.--CyberGhostface (talk) 11:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Thank goodness. After being the only editor who voted delete at the first AfD I thought I must be reading a different article to that seen by the other voters. This site fails WP:WEB as it hasn't multiple, non-trivial references. (In fact the LA Times article doesn't reference it at all). Tassedethe (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as a website that fails to assert notability. Original version was extremely keen to point out how just plain great this site was, too. That's been removed, but there is precious little left of note. Might be worth taking a look at Bryce Zabel too, as it's written in a very similar style and contains about the same level of references. OBM | blah blah blah 15:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Should Zabel be AFDed as well?--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Having looked at a few more of the sources, I think he might skirt in under the notability radar... but it certainly needs one hell of a rewrite.OBM | blah blah blah 16:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. As the person who did the most on this, I'm sorry to see how this has turned out.  It was only my intention to write up a page about what I thought was a noteworthy site, like Rotten Tomatoes or Megacritics.  I can see this was controversial and I should have learned more about Wiki before starting.  As it stands now, I'd take it down entirely, rather than see it as is currently.  Thanks for listening.  Ablebaker2 (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment has anyone asked the closing admin of the previous AFD to comment on this? I'm uncomfortable with the idea of overturning a keep decision on an AFD only a few days later, no matter what the reason; it sets poor precedent unless it is fully understood why. Having the closing admin either admit an error OR dispute the criticism would be good. 23skidoo (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. If it means anything, User:RyanLupin performed a non-admin closure. But I'll ask him right now.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Just checked his talk page. User:UltraExactZZ already told him. And while I'm not sure, it appeared RyanLupin was unaware of the keep votes being SPA accounts.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:58, 11 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.