Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TVRage.com (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 of the debate was delete. AfD is often inconsistant, and we should attempt to correct that by coherently applying agreed upon standards. This is a discussion, not a vote, and there have not been presented compelling reasons to disregard both the previous afd result and a widely agreed upon guideline. Re:Speedy deletion - Looking back at the previous nomination, it was expressed that it failed at that time to satisfy the website inclusion guideline. Noting that it then mentioned Alexa ranking, the change in ranking can be seen as "new information" and thus barely avoids deletion as a recreation. Re:Current Alexa - As it still fails to meet the 10,000 mark of the guideline at the time of the pervious afd all of the first nomination editors' concerns are still valid. The use by newer editors' of the wp:web guideline that has no alexa ranking re-enforces this. Re:Other articles - A few editors made comparisons to other existing wikipedia articles, or to mention in the TV Tome article. There appears to be a gross imbalance between this article's subject and tv.com, for example, and the mentions in TV tome could easily be removed... which is why we don't use other wikipedia articles as references. brenneman {T}  {L}  23:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

TVRage.com
This should be a CSD G4, as it's a recreation of deleted material (see the original AfD for details). However, a number of users with unusually low edit counts and few to no edits of anything unrelated to the TVRage.com article are making obnoxious and rude demands all over the place and have convinced an admin to pull the speedy delete tags. So I'm listing it here. I know nothing of the original article (I'm not an admin so I can't see it), and am only nominating it here because I put the G4 notice on it and was told to follow through with a full AfD, so I am doing so. My vote is abstain, although I have to admit I don't see where this recreated article is any less of a "blatant spamvertisement", as the original nominator put it, than the first version. ''(Striking comment per discussion below with 84.91.30.2. Forget I said it. Judge the article as is.) Aaron 22:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * CORRECTION: the speedy tag was removed by an anon, not an admin. Renata 14:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It was originally removed by an anon, then reinserted by Aaron and then removed again by me. I came upon this while doing speedy deletion patrol and saw that the article's proponents were complaining. I checked the Alexa rank, saw that it had very substantially improved since the last AfD and decided that this was enough new information to make speedy deletion as a recreation inappropriate and recommended a new AfD if someone still wanted this deleted. But you didn't really have to defer to me just because I'm an admin, if any user in good standing objects to a speedy deletion in circumstances like this that's probably grounds for a new debate.
 * If you decide to keep this we should also undelete the history of the original incarnation (now at a redirect). Haukur 14:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - The site now ranks 75,899 on alexa, which is higher than TV IV for example, and the site is viable competition for TV.com, which also has an article. However it should be checked by an experienced editor for POV. --Cooksey 22:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Comment . Article must meet guidelines set forth in Notability (websites).  It must meet at least one of the following: Subject of multiple non-trivial published works, Has won a well known and independent award, Content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators.  I don't see any of these here.  [[Image:Monkeyman.png]]Monkeyman(talk) 22:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * RE: That's your POV, isn't it?


 * Keep-The article is good. If it sounds like its an opinion, somebody could easily modify it to sound neutral. It is a good website, by what I've seen, and I see no reason why Tv IV gets to be here, and not tvrage. Like Cooksey said, its 75,900 on alexa, and just two weeks ago it was in the 99,000s. As you can see, its ever growing, and many believe it will surpass the original tvtome in a years time. Andrew120 22:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Andrew120 has has only 6 edits, all made in the last 24 hours and all directly related to TVRage.com. --Aaron 23:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment- and i can't have an opinion? plus, i stopped using my old account, and created a new one, because my old one was corrupted. Andrew120 23:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Of course you can have an opinion, but it's less likely to count to the closing admin unless you want to point out what your old account name was. See the box above. --Aaron 23:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - Aaron, I have edited other stuff prior to this article (but since I don’t use an account and use different computers from different stations, I don’t have a steady IP) and I personally rearranged it and removed every statement that according to some might be considered POV, bashing or "promotional mumbo-jumbo." Now this article is an impartial encyclopedic account of what TVRage is and stands for – pretty much like TV.com's article. If you feel that this article is a "blatant spamvertisement" then please go to the TV.com article and put an AfD over there too, because both articles are very alike. The differences between this and the older article are blatantly obvious! And since when only people with many edits can voice their opinions over here? Isn’t that elitism? 84.91.30.2 23:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I can't put an AfD on TV.com, because for me to do so would be to violate WP:POINT. I sure wouldn't complain if someone else did, though; it doesn't look like a particularly useful entry. But let me make it clear: I'm not anti-TVRage and pro-TV.com. I don't use either site. I only put this AfD up because an admin said to do so. If the TVRage.com entry survives this vote legitimately, that's fine by me. --Aaron 23:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I understand you're trying to be neutral, but you still called it a "blatant spamvertisement" (that's POV), which it may have been true originally (the article that was deleted the first time) but now is simply stating what TVRage is. We don't make comparisons with other active fansites alike nor do we use affirmative adjectives like "good," "better," "fast," -- so it's not promotional in any sense of the word...84.91.30.2 23:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Fair enough; my comment was probably a bit strong. I'll strike it. --Aaron 23:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, tv.com has alexa rank less than 500... Renata 14:27, 22 February 2006 UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't get your point, Renata...84.91.30.2 19:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: I've argued up and down this website as to why we should stay, so repeating old arguments does no good.  I'll simply point out that we definately qualify under #3 of the new terms. Aside from Google recently making us one of the top 10 sites you see when referencing shows, Newzbin.com, EpGuides.com, and even Wikipedia.com (through television shows on here listing us as a reference) are three websites we get heavy traffic from.  I think it's obvious that we're not affiliated with either Google or WP.  And you can definiately check the other two.  I do find it disheartening to know you've removed the Alexa rule, especially since that was the big reason we were deleted last time.  To be blunt, we're a television catalog and information website.  Any show that airs on television around the world, we catalog it's airdate, guests, notes, quotes, etc.  Think of us as a more detailed version of IMDb.  We're not looking for a billboard to advertise on, but we do want to be cataloged in Wikipedia as a source for entertainment information.  If you haven't looked at our website, I suggest you do.  Go find your favorite shows and see what we've got.  That's as simple as I can make it.  JohnQ.Public 17:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: I feel that this site deserves a stop here. And if you purely want my opinion about this situation, I think it's not wise to even consider to remove the article. I do not see the article as "blatant spamvertisement" in any type or form. As JohnQ.Public has stated, we're not looking for a billboard to advertise on, but we want to be cataloged in Wikipedia as a source for entertainment information.Scouxx 20:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: The article is referenced by the TV Tome article, and the Alexa rank (and especially the degree to which it has improved over the last few months) indicate that if this site isn't clearly notable now, it will be soon. I do not condone the behavior of the editors of this article, however: but I'm not going to make a WP:POINT by voting for deletion because of it. Mangojuice 01:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep — Seems like the POV has been removed and the article made more neutral. Still reads a little like an advert, but most of the web page articles (and a lot of the corporate articles) do too.  Doesn't seem any more or less notable than a lot of the other kept web related articles.. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  February 22, 2006, 02:00 (UTC)
 * Keep: This article is a great article on the TVRage website.  It has almost the same information for TVRage as there is for TV Tome.  And that, by my standards, is useful.  Green lantern40 06:06 (Californian Time), February 21, 2006
 * Keep per Mangojuice. Turnstep 04:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mangojuice. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  10:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Statement by an involved party. It was me who tagged the artcile as speedy the first time following on TeleGuides discussions. Then the tag was removed, I got contacted by User:JohnQ.Public (see my and his talk page). My belief is that the website is not notable, (I know a bunch of websites with a better alexa rank and I still think they are not notable, for example, testmagic.com - 30,000, site that I credit for my good TOEFL score). Also, Wikipedia is not place for TV website wars. Take it to your own forums. If the popularity is growing, good, but they still have a long way to go. Renata 14:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - per my statement above. Renata 14:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Check this out: We have a featured article on Memory Alpha. Haukur 15:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Memory Alpha is a reference site though, which is sourced as a secondary source, and therefore I (at least) argue that the WP:WEB traffic criteria are not the only (or primary) way to judge notability. Is the site in question a reference site? I haven't looked to see if other sources cite from it or not. ++Lar: t/c 19:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Also, Memory Alpha has been site of the week at sci-fi.com, which is non-trivial coverage. Hiding talk 21:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Even though it's not a requirement, I'd just like to point out from Alexa's latest update, our new rank: 61,001.  http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=3m&size=large&compare_sites=&y=r&url=tvrage.com#top .  JohnQ.Public 17:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry Haukurth I can't seem to confirm what you said. A featured article in Memory alpha??  Where? --Perfecto  01:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Read my comment again :) Wikipedia's article on Memory Alpha is a featured article. Memory Alpha is a reference site with an Alexa rank in the same ballpark as TVRage.com There may, of course, well be reasons to keep one and not the other as some are arguing here, I just thought it was a comparison worth making, simplistic though it is. Haukur 17:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment AARON!!! Here is my other account. Happy. Good. Well we sure did improve on the alexa thing.Amaas120 04:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. FWIW, I checked again and, except the "alexa boost", all my reasons to delete then still hold true. --Perfecto  07:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per CSD:G4, or failing that delete per WP:WEB. Stifle 11:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment That's B.S. Stifle and you know it. The Speedy delete was removed twice by other modirators so we could get a fair chance to stay.  And now that you see more Keep votes than Delete votes, you want to try again?  Not to mention you didn't bother to say anything specific, you just did what half the other modirators here do and that was post a link to a  description page that doesn't explain our specific situation.  That way you don't have to explain anything, and make yourself feel justifyed in your action.  How about posting a GOOD reason that hasn't already beed address and dismissed above, or in the Speedy page.  JohnQ.Public 09:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - You want a good reason? Here you go: It fails the criteria for notability given in WP:WEB and is not a reference site widely enough cited to waive those criteria. You guys aren't helping your case when you use terms like "moderators" (we don't have any, we have editors and some of the editors are admins, arbitrators or bureacrats) or "argued up and down the site" (just cite the pages where you discussed things), because it shows that you're not as conversant with the ways of wikipedia as some, meaning that the closing admin is more likely to discount your opinions as not as clearly understanding how things are done here as some commentators. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 22:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Well your information of who runs this place isn't exactly easy to locate, so what better term did I have? If you bothered to post a link to the list of Admin's or people in charge of deciding what gets the axe or not, I'm sure it would be more user friendly.  Now, the following is just my opinion and should hold no basis on this argument.  I am just responding to what was posted by Lar  As far as the topic of being versed in the ways of the big W, have you bothered checking the net and on television on what people think of this place?  I have, it's actually part of my real job.  Wikipedia is widely considered a joke.  You rely on people to come here and add information on anything and everything.  That leads to false info and biased opinions, making your webpages unreliable.  And since you like to site sources, go check out pages like Hitler, Abortion, and President Bush (and about 100+ other U.S. officials) just to name a few.  Locked down and frequently edited because of those very arguments.  If you were truly aiming to be an encyclopedia to the world, you would have joined up with the Library Of Congress and several other information sources across the globe.  As opposed to relying on people with no lives who know everything about a single topic to find this place and post.  I'm sorry, but when CNN goes on air and once an hour for two days straight says your website is a piece of garbage... do I really need to say more.  I don't bother to become versed or get involved because my experience with this place is that most of my material gets edited and deleted frequently on a whim.  Both on my other user name, and anonymously.  And because of that, I honestly don't think a lot of the "Editors" here are the best people to judge what belongs and what doesn't.  You're not professors, you're not experts, and I doubt any of you were dumb enough to claim you know all there is to know about everything.  Unless someone can step up and claim they research daily every single topic that comes to this webpage on a daily basis, I don't think it's too much to say that this place is due for a management overhaul.  So seriously, stop dictating to me that you know what should stay and what should go.  Especially when I know for a fact that only a few of you who are "in charge" here have come to check out the website and explore the info it has to offer.  To quote one of the people who started the Encyclopædia Britannica "We may document it, but we sure as hell don't study it.  We could be wrong."  JohnQ.Public 17:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, summarising that, then... "WP is crap, all the articles here are crap, and no one here knows what they are doing" but you want your article kept anyway... (see also: I don't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member --Groucho Marx) Is that about right?  + +Lar: t/c 00:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * JohnQ.Public, are you here to improve Wikipedia or just so that your site has an article here? Please reply.  --Perfecto  01:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep --James 01:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Why?— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) –  February 24, 2006, 02:24 (UTC)
 * Reply to Lar & Perfecto: To Lar, no, that isn't right.  You came to the defense of this website and your decision.  I pointed out why I think that decision was wrong and why I (based around the attitude of the staff, and the non-simplistic rule system) defended my stance using sources such as your own webpages and CNN to back that statement up.  Sorry to be a smartass, but I thought that's what you wanted?   Non-trivial published works and recognition through broadcast.  I would have added external links, but MSNBC's article was erased last week.  You act like ridding WP of our website is like killing a disease, or to a lesser extent, popping a pimple.  And a number (not all) of the editors I've dealt with on here act as if they're the all curing doctors of information and they're the only people whose medicine matters.  When in reality very few of you bother reading the right medical books to look for the proper cure.  As if this one medicine can cure all.  Well, it doesn't.  I urge you to take a look at our website with fresh eyes and judge it on the content, not on the manner of which it's posted on here.  Text can be fixed a corrected, a delete cannot.  And to Perfecto, no, you know better.  In fact if you recall, you complimented me on my skills at the last discussion and said I would be perfect here.  I registered a name to use in these forums so that you can see an actual Admin from the website was here to defend it's existence here, and that our staff wasn't just sending people in waves (like so many other websites do) to defend the article.  I take an active role when it comes to our website, I don't hire lackeys to do my speaking for me.  While I haven't done much under this username (which wasn't registered long ago), I am here to improve Wikipedia.  But you will excuse me if I come to the defense of the place I call home and assure that it stays before I go adding more info for your staff to post for deletion.  You want a lot more from me?  I'd like more from you.  A list of Editors and Admins for new people to turn to, especially in matters such as this where I feel we're being unfairly treated.  And how about guide of how to properly do things at Wikipedia that doesn't read like IKEA guide to building an entertainment system?  And that goes for every page you have here for rules and regulations.  You demand your users to make pages simplistic, yet you've made the very codes for this site about as easy to understand music sung by Kurt Cobain.  As far as adding more info, anyone who has seen my guides at TvTome, Tv.com, and TvRage knows I'm dedicated and detailed.  (Again, you need to come look at our website.)  I'd be happy to add information to a number of other topics, especially in television history, broadcasting, filming, news, networks, unions, and anything else involving entertainment.  But seeing how dedicated much of the staff here is into removing a website that catalogs television information, I really question whether or not my info would just be monitored and deleted anyway under the guise of it not meeting the standards of another set of unreadable rules.  You really can't deny the actions you and I take speak louder than the words we type.  I have a proven track record for all to see of doing my job and doing it right.  All I've seen from you is to frequently delete material you deem as obsolete or useless.  I'll be happy to add more when I see that everyone gets the same fair treatment.  So far, we're still sitting on the fence here.  We've met the requirements of the last delete, and at least one of the new system (if you'll look back to another discussion, someone else mentioned our website in in an article or two).  I'm sorry if Time Magazine and the Nobel Prize judges haven't gotten around to us yet.  (Which I might add, if you're saying a website must have all three to stay, you might want to start deleting every website on this encyclopeda.)  Not to mention the large amount of Keep votes from both users and staff members.  Yet your still pushing for a delete using the same rule over and over despite explanations and defense from your own members.  I think I'll wait to add more until after the final decision.  That's not to say I'll leave if we're deleted.  But it's not too encouraging to get a two sentence response from you Perfecto, that comes off like you're looking for a reason to get rid of me.  JohnQ.Public 22:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'm sorry. I'm also sorry I asked.  As I said before I do hope you contribute in other ways than writing about your site.  I always believe, "If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will create an article about you sooner or later."  Why not see what's going on? --Perfecto  18:35, 24 February 2006 (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.