Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spill.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   delete. Cirt (talk) 04:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Spill.Com

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable website. No reliable sources covering site. Fails WP:WEB. Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Plenty of reliable sources. Did you click the News link in your AfD?     . And a million and a half hits on Google for the site (excluding the half million index hits of of the site itself). --Odie5533 (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: See WP:BURDEN and WP:GHITS, but since you asked: #1 valid ref; #2 and #5 valid ref, but seems more about parent company; #3 and #4 seems to be be a restatement of a PR piece so appears to fall into the WP:WEB 1b) exception of "trivial coverage"; #6 does not appear to reference Spill.com. So that leaves one valid ref and two sort-of refs, which doesn't meet WP:WEB 1). The other News links are reprints of PR from Spill.com. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it more, it seems to be a popular site but not have enough reliable coverage. Until more reliable sources cover the site, I'm inclined to agree that it should be deleted. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Would this CNN coverage citing a Spill.com article The Austin Film Critic Association  and references from /film.com including this one  as reliable coverage? It should also be noted that while the previous 2 & 5 (from the Motley Fool) focus upon the stock of the previous parent company MIVA, the articles themselves are about the stock of that company based upon the content and popularity of the site in question.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.103.212 (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The X-Men Origins: Wolverine references are about the leak itself, not about Spill.com so I do not think that would be enough to establish Spill.com's notability: CNN was just in passing as a background screen shot, /film just reports somebody from Spill.com said it was an old version so it not really about Spill.com. Being a member of the Austin Film Critics Association does not make one's website notable.  The Motley Fool content is more about MIVA, not Spill.com. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree. It is nonsensical to delete the page "untill it cites more reliable sources" as more reliable sources cannot be added to the page if it has been deleted. The best thing to do is to simply leave the website up for the time being and if it doesn't have more reible sources and citation by an alloted time, then it should be deleted. 92.251.175.206 (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We are not proposing deleting the page because it doesn't cite enough reliable sources, we are proposing deleting it because its subject (Spill.com) has not received enough coverage in reliable sources to warrant an article. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Spill.com is a suitably large movie review site with full time reviewers working for it. As such it is a legitamate website and is worthy of a short entry. Several movie pages have their grades in the Reception sections and thus has recieved enough coverage. It was also featured on network news over the Wolverine/Fox piracy debate in may --Davidbray2 (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2009 (GBT) — Davidbray2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It does appear to be reliable, but I am not sure reliability is the same as notability. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's notable enough for many people to want a wikipedia page about it. It's a short entry, and people will use it because so many people actually use that site (spill.com)and tell their friends about it. And it did appear CNN, which is one of the biggest news networks. I'd say that's notable enough for a short wiki page. --EspioChaos (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC).  — EspioChaos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment: JoBlo, Cinema Blend and other film sites that are less notable and have NO sources on their pages aren't up for deletion, why should Spill.com be singled out?PittJames (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC) — PittJames (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; articles should be judged on their own merits, and not be contingent on the existence of other articles. If you feel that the ones you have listed (JoBlo, Cinema Blend, etc) are unworthy of having articles, you may put them up for deletion as well. See the steps at WP:AFD. Glass  Cobra  20:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, said article also states that saying automatically dismissing the "other stuff exists" argument isn't a valid response. Spill is a well-known website, as are sites similar to it that have pages. I don't understand the debate here. Especially since much of it was started by Flesheater, who is a well-known spammer on Spill, causing grief and insulting various members of the site because he thinks its fun. PittJames (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Well-known" is a subjective term, see WP:BIG. Wikipedia judges notability by the amount of verifiable coverage in reliable, third-party sources; the debate here is to determine whether this article passes these standards. As for your other point, I don't see anyone named Flesheater here, nor am I aware of anyone by that name on this site. Glass  Cobra  01:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * He's all over the discussion page saying that Spill is a virus and other nonsense. PittJames (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone identifying as Flesheater has indeed posted on the talk page, though his comments are not that egregious, and do not appear to intend to start any discussion, as you state. Furthermore, whatever comments were made on the talk page do not affect the debate here at all. Glass  Cobra  02:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete References provided here could be used to demonstrate the notability of the parent company, Miva, but not this website. Still lacks references to significant coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and RadioFan. Glass  Cobra  16:08, 14 October 2009 (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.