Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Movie Database (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. Consensus of editors is that the sources do not contain significant coverage to the level required to meet our notability requirements. Daniel (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The Movie Database
AfDs for this article:


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

An article on this website was deleted at AFD in 2017 due to inadequate sourcing. A new article has been created today - but the sourcing problem remains. There are 14 citations on the article - 2 are to the website itself. 4 are user generated content (Quora, reddit, Wikidata, Letterboxd). 3 are to open source projects that have plugins to read the DB (Kodi, Plex) - not independent or reliably published. 1 is an indiscriminate API directory (ProgrammableWeb). 1 is an Alexa listing. The remaining 3 (IMDB, the BBC, and the Guardian) don't actually mention the topic of the article. I've looked and I can't find better sourcing. Since this article has -0- independent, reliable sources, I believe it fails both WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT and should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MrOllie (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well as the article appears on 9 other WP languages, it clearly exists, so such articles should be given time, given it's marked as a stub, as that's what it is for the moment. Instant deletion is jumping the gun here. Jimthing (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: A mass copy-edit has since been done, including some better links. While not perfect, the issue has been improved upon and somewhat dealt with. Jimthing (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete there is literally nothing here that shows notability. All the references, all 22 now, are unreliable, self-sourced or only marginally relevant.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 'self-sourced or only marginally relevant', what does that mean? They're smaller outlets due to the nature of the subject, but news sites nonetheless. Jimthing (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 'unreliable' - reddit, qoura, wikidata, blogs, all unreliable sources; 'self-sourced' - sources which are written by the subject (a blogpost and the own website); 'marginally relevant': websites that announce something about another product but do not even mention tmdb. In analogy to the initial analysis by User:MrOllie stating "There are 14 citations on the article - 2 are to the website itself. 4 are user generated content (Quora, reddit, Wikidata, Letterboxd). 3 are to open source projects that have plugins to read the DB (Kodi, Plex) - not independent or reliably published. 1 is an indiscriminate API directory (ProgrammableWeb). 1 is an Alexa listing. The remaining 3 (IMDB, the BBC, and the Guardian) don't actually mention the topic of the article" - now it is "There are 22 citations on the article - 2 are to the website itself. 5 are user generated content (Quora, reddit, Wikidata, Letterboxd). 3 are to open source projects that have plugins to read the DB (Kodi, Plex) - not independent or reliably published. 1 is an indiscriminate API directory (ProgrammableWeb), 3 are studies using said API to analyze data from tmdb, 1 is an Alexa listing. 3 are to churnalism type/crowdsourced data/personal listings (resp. Makeuseof, alternativeto and streamingsites).  The remaining 4 (IMDB, the BBC, Mashable, and the Guardian) don't actually mention the topic of the article."  I've been considering to suggest to salt, but I see that Ohnoitsjamie beat me to that suggestion.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt Still zero WP:SIGCOV on any reliable sources, and a history of aggressive promotion attempts. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Why are you using something someone else did years ago for reasoning now? That's completely unfair behaviour on editors efforts today. I was not involved in any 'promotional attempts' as you call them, so why are you tarnishing my work with those people's actions. Jimthing (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * no, it is not unfair. We have websites that have been spamming us for more than 10 years.  Continuous attempts to get delisted.  Having your website (or even, your company or product) mentioned on Wikipedia is good for your business.  SEO is paying their bills.  This is not some stupid vandalism or against-community editing (and some editors are indefinitely banned for that), spam is paying the bills of people.  The argument that this was years ago is not making any difference.  The questions are: is it notable now and (for the blacklist): is it going to be of general use now. Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes it is unfair. We all know that being on WP may have the side effect of being 'good for business', that's not in doubt. What is in doubt is your continual usage of that reasoning for denial of legitimate subject matter on WP. Again, you fail to answer the question repeatedly asked... Presuming citations exist for both, how is a site like IMDb allowed it's own article page (along with mass External Links section usage across movie & TV show article pages), a highly commercial website (as in, they make money from notoriety and linking to it), while TMDb isn't even allowed it's own article page (even with no External Links section usage across movie & TV show article pages)? Under your own reasoning above, both are 'spamming' (to use your terminology here), as they both link to their own respective sites. Jimthing (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * IMDb is notable, it has references that are both independent and reliable at the same time talking about it. tmdb does not have independent references talking about it (and those that are, are unreliable). Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be rude, but I think you're ignoring the main question again. Let me rephrase it... providing both are cited, how is IMDb's presence on WP any more appropriate than TMDb's - given they both do the same thing? Jimthing (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * History of promotionalism is worth noting because that tends to lead to a bunch of unreliable citations that need to be weeded out (we call this a WP:REFBOMB). But the reason to delete is the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. MrOllie (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, you are ignoring the answer. IMDb is notable, big.  Therefore its presence is deemed appropriate.  Therefore the community has deemed it good to include the links on every page.  It is a well respected, well known database.  TMDb is unknown, 22 references and you are not able to show any that are independent and reliable.  IMDb ismore established, TMDb is not. Anyway, your argument is pure WP:WHATABOUTX.  We are not comparing TMDb with IMDb, we are judging TMDb on its own merits.  And it fails.  There is no independent reliable sourcing. Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course IMDB's presence is deemed appropriate, but size is not the only determinant of validity. TMDb is clearly not unknown, as the sources attest to its various uses by both domestic users and companies. The sources given make that clear enough regardless of being limited in number, others have been added –including the suggested one below to the conference paper book– so saying "there is no independent reliable sourcing" is not true. Jimthing (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The use of a database in an academic study does not make something notable. Do you have the latimes writing articles about TMDb?  Or CBS news?  CNET?  TheRegister?  BBC News?  SkyNews?  Boston Globe?  Out of (now) 27 references you have one case where an academic used it independently of the subject.  But they are not writing about TMDb, they are writing about face recognition software and that they used the database for testing.  As user:Jumpytoo says below: "... this is not enough to meet GNG".  We are at this for 9 days, and all you have is unreliable, tangential, self published, user generated, and not even a single main news outlet who has ever written about this. Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The website is not a mainstream product so is clearly not going to be covered in mass mainstream outlets is it, but rather specialist ones (like thousands of other WP articles), which are some of those that appear in the article already. Furthermore, it is a Wikidata property datapoint, yet users who want to see what the Wikidata point is, have no English-language WP page to link-through to; hence why it features on nine other WP language's accordingly. Jimthing (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no exception for niche topics - everything must meet the same sourcing standard. MrOllie (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, well instead of deletion, to give more time for better sources to be found, I've instead added the more reasonable "More citations needed" + stub status templates. I hope that's OK? Jimthing (talk) 04:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You assume they exist? The current version of the article is essentially the same as this deleted version of 11 March 2017, at 04:17 (admin only) (with as only main additions the recent history regarding other companies' use of the db, and more extensive use of the db in external studies).  In almost 4 years the article has not improved (most of the prose is literally the same as the deleted article), and there has not been any significant media coverage since.  It almost fits our criteria for speedy deletion CSD-G4 as it is 'substantially identical to the deleted version'. Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well just found further ones (inc. Australian Govt film classification, and Empire magazine), so seemingly yes. Along with some re-writes for clarity. Jimthing (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Those aren't sources providing significant coverage, they're the required attribution notices for sites that use the TMDB API. - MrOllie (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I just came here to say the same. So really you don’t have what we asked for for years now? Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment, can you please provide the WP:THREE best sources that you believe establish notability? The only stuff I found is this conference paper having a short section about the database, and some mentions of using this DB in some theses, but this is not enough to meet GNG. So looking to see if you have any other sources for this site. Jumpytoo Talk 00:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I added your source, with thanks. While I wish there were of course more, there are others in the article from news sources, establishing WP:GNG, along the site being used as a Wikidata property, and thus being on nine other WP languages outside of the English one. Jimthing (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV per the convincing source analysis by the nominator.4meter4 (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2022 (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.