Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Movie Spoiler


 * 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. Flowerparty ☀ 02:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The Movie Spoiler
No assertion of notability, and there isn't really any to assert anyway. There are numerous websites that write about films, this one is in no way unique or significant. Gets plenty of Google hits, but that's because it's a website that's linked to from other places. That does not make it worthy of an article in an encyclopedia.--Sean Black 00:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete NN - if this goes in so does almost every web site Crum375 01:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable website. Fluit 02:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why is it notable? Has it gotten any media coverage? Has it affected anything in any significant way? Please give a clearer rationale.--Sean Black 02:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This website has been around since at least 1999. Not only does it have a significant number of Google hits, a search of usenet archives shows that there are hundreds of entries referring to and discussing this website. The website itself links to media coverage of it. I'm sticking with Keep, but as always am happy with whatever the consensus brings. (WP:WEB, btw, is only guideline, not policy.) Fluit 16:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Lots of websites have been around since 1999, that doesn't make them notable. As I said in the nomination, it gets a high number of Google hits because it's a spam machine- It's whole goal is to get more people to link to it and thus view it's advertisements, etc. etc. The only "media coverage" that the site notes is several anonymous emails and an appearance on a minor Seattle area radio programme. I don't believe that this, nor the "Usenet discussion", which doesn't seem to exist per this Google Groups search, which largely shows email spam sent to newsgroups and a few people linking to it. Numerous websites are linked to from Usenet mailing lists, what makes this one significant enough for an entry in a general encyclopedia?--Sean Black 20:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You asked for my reasons, you have them. I'm not out to change your mind, and you haven't changed mine. I won't lose any sleep over the results, I'm just here to give my opinion. As for the usenet threads, few if any of the threads I read were usenet spam. Fluit 02:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't want to change your mind. I'm simply demonstrating that you gave no evidence that this is site is "notable" whereas I gave plenty of evidence that it isn't. AFD is not a vote, it is a discussion, and the closing admin will judge arguments, not bolded suggestions. You have given a very weak, or rather, nonexistant, argument.--Sean Black 02:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - non-notable site, plus some editors went on a linkspam spree for it a month or so ago, which influenced my decision. MikeWazowski 03:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WEB -- Tawker 20:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Tawker. Mackensen (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete NN per nom Bastique &#09660; parler voir 20:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. (Ibaranoff24 03:01, 22 May 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.