Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Movies.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 keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 07:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Movies.com

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails GNG and NWEB. The two present sources only talk about the site's aquisition. No other sources immediately visible NW1223&lt;Howl at me&bull;My hunts&gt; 16:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Websites.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: This article was in sad shape, which passed muster around here when it was created almost 18 years ago, I suppose.  I have expanded and added more citations, I think the website is certainly notable.  It is kind of funny how many of the basic URLs that people thought would be automatic cash cows in the late 1990s didn't succeed, like this one, and Pets.com as the quintessential example.  I guess humans prefer interesting brand names.  E.g., I just checked, books.com redirects to Barnes & Noble's website.--Milowent • hasspoken  20:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep as the article has been significantly improved using multiple reliable sources as per WP:HEY so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2023 (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.