Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Everyonesacritic.net

I refactored the comments below from the main AFD page as they were weighing it down. Stifle 21:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Just completed a second refactoring. Stifle 16:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * TC Candler is NOT a double for the author, but a member of EaC who has his own website: independentcritics.com. Perhaps some of you should learn a bit of etiquette towards Wikipedia newbies and give them the benefit of the doubt before throwing them under the bus.  I am trying to comply with Wikipedia guidelines, I'm a new Wikipedia author and am 100% willing to work within the guidelines. Dave Seidner


 * A couple of comments and observations: First off, Alphachimp doesn't state a reason for deletion. I'm just a newbie and I don't know how things normally work around here, but am I understanding this correctly?  Any user can just come into this discussion and vote "Delete" without even stating a reason?  Personally, I think that vote should be disregarded.  Even though he didn't say much, at least Maustrauser said "NN", but IMHO that's questionable as well.  Anyone can type "NN"  Why not back it up with a reason why you think this article falls into the NN category?  The second thing is Ruby posts the EaC traffic rank.  Fair enough, but can someone tell me exactly what are the guidelines for a site being considered NN? Is there a traffic rank cutoff number?  Or is it subjective to each Wikipedian?  I'm just trying to make sense of all this. --Dave Seidner  8:42, 17 February 2006


 * To help you make sense of it all Dave, look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28websites%29 This is what I used in determining my decision to vote delete. Maustrauser 02:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As did I (linked as WP:WEB in my opinion above). It's really nothing personal.  I just don't see evidence that your site meets the inclusion criteria.--Isotope23 03:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment First off, thank you, Richard and TC for your support.  These gentlemen are two of the finer examples of EaC members.  Also, thanks to Urbane Legend for your support as well.  I've updated the Everyone's a Critic entry in the following ways: 1) I've added three external links to press and an award that the site has won.  This alone, should take care of the NN claims.  2)I've added a section regarding details of the charity event that richard refered to above.  This second item has nothing to do with the deletion claims, but it was worth including.  If nothing else, it makes the article itself more interesting and encyclopedia wort4hy, it also should show the spirit of the community.  We're not out to make a buck.  We just think this website is worthy of an inclusion to Wikipedia along with other film related websites that are allowed to have articles here.--Dave 15:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Added several internal Wikipedia links throughout article.--Dave 16:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Once again, it's the author of this article chiming in.  I have several points to make and several comments as well.  Being a newbie, when I first submitted this article, I will admit I knew next to nothing about Wikipedia.  Since this article has been submitted for deletion, I've learned a good bit.  I've done some research into the deletion policy and other Wikipedia policies lately and according to said policies, I would like to state why every vote for deletion of this article is bogus and should rightly be reversed by each Wikipedian who've voted as such.  I'm not saying all of them were bogus at the time the votes were initially cast, but as the author of this article, I've made several changes which I'll refer you to which proves that this article is well worthy of being included in Wikipedia.

First, I will break down the reason for each delete and prove it's invalidity.


 * 1) Ruby voted Delete Reason: Traffic Rank for everyonesacritic.net: 915,697
 * My response: The rank Ruby posted is an Alexa rank. Here is what Wikipedia
 * deletion guidelines say about Alexa:

Alexa rankings are not a part of the notability guidelines for web sites for several reasons:
 * Below a certain level, Alexa rankings are essentially meaningless, because of the limited sample size. Alexa itself says ranks worse than 100,000 are not reliable, and some critics feel it is worse than that.
 * Placing cutoffs at 100 and 1000 is arbitrary.
 * Alexa rankings vary over time.
 * Alexa rankings include significant bias. (See below.)
 * Alexa rankings do not reflect whether any source material for constructing an encyclopaedia article actually exists. A highly ranked web site may well have nothing written about it, or a poorly ranked web site may well have a lot written about it.
 * A number of unquestionably notable topics have corresponding web sites with a poor Alexa ranking. For instance, http://www.avrillavigne.com had a traffic ranking of 1,261,091 as of January 27, 2006[5], but nobody would question Avril Lavigne easily warrants an article, and its reasonable to assume the site is visited by more people than indicated by Alexa.


 * 2)Isotope23 and Maustrauser refer to NN as the Delete reason.
 * My Response: This may have been valid at the time of the vote, but since then I've
 * added external links to press about EaC and an award EaC has won. Here is what
 * Wikipedia says about Website Notability:

Criteria for web content Web specific-content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
 * The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
 * This criterion excludes:
 * Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.
 * Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.
 * This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.

The article itself must provide proofs that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section.
 * The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.
 * The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.


 * 3) I've mentioned before that Alphachimp didn't state a reason for deletion. Enough
 * said on that one.


 * 4)Cdcon first voted Delete but mentions that it's a close call. Then changes
 * his vote to Strong Delete (which according to the Deletion Policy isn't even
 * an option).


 * My response: Cdcon says the article should be more neutral.  I admit there was a
 * bias when I first wrote the article. At the time I wasn't aware it had to be
 * neutral. Upon learning this, I completely changes the POV of the article.  Does
 * anyone still think the article shows bias or is it merely stating facts?


 * 5)Neigel von Teighen also mentioned NPOV when I first discussed this with him. He pointed out a statemet that sounded like a slogan.  Well, I've removed and altered the POV stuff, so this shouldn't be an issue.  I still ask, what about the MovieLens article where the image states Helping you find the right movies.  Slogan?--Dave 01:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Thank you, Karmafist for the Keep albeit a weak one. One correction I need to point out is that the article doesn't technically break WP:AUTO.  I was not writing about a website I created.  The website was actually created and run by my brother, Dan.  I am a member of the site, but I have nothing to do with administrating the site, other than being a member.  So, although I admit that the article may be considered borderline WP:AUTO by some, it technically is not. --Dave 16:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Again, I have several points to make. Firstly, misplaced good faith contributions and WP:BITE should certainly trump many of the claims against this article.  I am a newbie.  With good faith, I'm attempting to adhere to the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia.  So, the first question is: "Why was this article moved to AFD so quickly?"  I've seen articles on Wikipedia with advert posted instead.  Given that I'm new, and Wikipedia's policies regarding newbies are to give them benifit of the doubt, why was this page rushed to deletion?  I mean give a newbie a chance to work out the kinks.  Also, regarding the so called sockpuppets, officially, these people are not sockpuppets.  It is not me with several usernames.  I admit these folks may be considered "fans' of the site.  If that's frowned upon, fine. I'll ask folks from EaC not to come here to place votes in this discussion.  It's not like I posted a message at EaC asking these folks to come here and do this with no reason.  I posted a message there that explained what was going on with this article and if they believed in the cause to come here to support it.  Again, being a newbie, how am I to know this is frowned upon?  I can only learn as I go.  But again the issue is regarding the article itself, not what is posted in the AFD.  If fans of the site are coming here to support the site, it has nothing to do with the validity of the article.  The EaC fans coming here may be frowned upon and ultimately it probably won't help my case.  But, it certainly shouldn't hurt it.  At the very least, their comments can be ignored.  At the most, maybe some of you will read what they are saying and give them some weight.  The next thing I want to talk about is the ridiculous responses to my legitimate efforts I'm getting from Mitsukai.  No offense, this is not meant as a personal attack, but your logic befuddles me.  First, I mention other similar articles about similar websites that are not being considered for deletion.  Your response was "No offense, but just because we haven't caught them yet doesn't mean that they've survived an AFD. We may have to look into those as well, and if they meet the same nn criteria as yours might (note I say might, as this AFD is not complete yet), they may be nominated for AFD as well.--み使い Mitsukai 20:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)"  Well, this was a couple days ago and I haven't seen any efforts on your part to delete these articles.  Why was this article attacked so quickly without giving the author a chance to make changes instead of villifying the article, when these other articles that are not much different from my article are out there with no one challenging them.  Not that I believe these articles should be up for deletion, but when I pointed them out, Mitsukai basically dismissed what I said instead of addressing it.  My point was to show precedence and Mitsukai dismissed the point.  That point is very minor compared to this next one.  After some of the nice Wikipedian folks pointed me in the direction of what NN is, I read the guidelines and made the necessary changes so that the article adheres to NN according to the Wikipedia NN guidelines.  Instead of Mitsukai realizing that NN no longer applies, Mitsukai says "...Lastly, by your nitpicking every bit of the rules, you are not ensuring that the article will survive; however, you are finding the flaws in the rules that will likely be tightened up after this AFD regardless of the outcome. For that we should thank you, but that does not make your site any more notable"  How can you call what I'm doing "nitpicking"?  First you tell me I'm not adhering to the guidelines, fine.  "What are the guidelines?" I ask.  "Oh here Dave, here is a link to the guidelines."  "Thank you"  So I read the guidelines, and adhere to them and then Mitsukai says I'm nitpicking and after this we'll tighten up the guidelines???????  That is RIDICULOUS  You want to tighten up the guidelines? fine.  But for now, as we are debating this AFD, THOSE ARE CURRENTLY THE GUIDELINES whether you think they need to be changed or not.  It's like being on trial and the defense attorney submits evidence that legally proves the defendants innocence, yet the judge says "Nah, we'll have to change that law right after the trial.  Insubmissible."--Dave 17:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I'd like to bring everybody's attention to the following regarding AfD etiquitte:

AfD etiquette
 * Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers, Wikiquette, no personal attacks, civility, and assume good faith before making a recommendation as to whether the article should be deleted or not, or making a comment.
 * Sign any recommendation or comment you add, by adding this at the end: Dave 19:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC).
 * Make a good-faith effort to notify the creator and/or main contributor(s) of the article before nominating, as they may be able to address concerns raised.
 * If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly, and clearly base your recommendations on the deletion policy.
 * Your opinion will be given the most weight if you are logged in with an account that already existed when the nomination was made.
 * Unregistered and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons).

Everything in bold has been ignored when it concerns this AfD--Dave 19:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Taken from Wikipedia on Notability Deletion decisions:

There is a lack of objective criteria
There are no objective criteria for notability besides the Alexa and Google tests. "Non-notable" is generally a non-NPOV designation. The person who authored the article clearly believes that the topic is notable enough to be included.

Existing rules are sufficient
The no original research rule keeps out most of what is unencyclopedic. Notability is not needed as long as the verifiability rules are strictly applied.

Valid content is deleted
The recent fundraising page says, "Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." We are not doing that if we are deleting articles solely due to their obscurity. "Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's pretty hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper" (from Importance).

Obscure content isn't harmful
Wikipedia is not paper and (practically) has no size limits, and so should include "everything" that fits within its other criteria. There is room for articles on any and every verifiable subject. There is no harm in including an obscure topic, because if it is truly non-notable, people simply won't search for it or link to it. It will not create a significant server load as such.

Deletion reform is necessary
A policy of "delete if and only if the article is not verifiable in a reliable source" would make it far easier to decide borderline cases and would turn AfD into a more constructive process, which would make articles Wikipedia more reliable by adding references where possible. The problem with writing "Delete, non-notable" is not about whether the articles should be in Wikipedia, but that it is a quick phrase that does not tell another person why the article is non-notable.--Dave 14:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Final Comments There are two reasons this article has been put in AfD status: 1. WP:NPOV and 2. WP:WEB. NPOV should not be a reason for deletion.  I am more than willing and happy to work within Wikipedia's guidelines of NPOV.  When I first wrote this article, I fully admit it was NPOV.  I've since changed the article to adhere to the NPOV guidelines.  If I am still in violation of NPOV, if a seasoned Wikipedian would specifically point out what those violations are, I will change them.  So, as you can see, this reason alone may be considered a reason for cleanup, not deletion.  Regarding the WP:WEB reason, there are many things to consider.  First, let's look at the dictionary definition of notability.

no•ta•bil•i•ty 1.	The state or quality of being eminent or worthy of notice.

Take notice of the word quality. Notability is not something that can be measured by numbers or rankings. It's very subjective. Just because you, the Wikipedia editor, haven't heard of EaC, does that mean it's not notable? Several EaC members have posted in this AfD as to why they feel EaC is notable. Yes, I know that new users posting here are frowned upon by many of you (even though it's perfectly within Wikipedia's guidelines for them to do so), but read what they are writing. Is it truly in bad faith? They are all making very valid points as to the notability of EaC. So, since the subjectivity of notability cannot be argued, how is the Wikipedia community to make such decisions based on notability? Well, they will need some guidelines to adhere to. Otherwise it's just chaos and people can just use lack of notability as an excuse to delete whatever they want. How am I or others to know that the people coming to a consensus on these issues aren't just power hungry delete freaks, who take pleasure in tearing something down as opposed to building it up? This is why Wikipedia needs some kind of guidelines to go by. Wikipedia's guidelines say that although you can use an Alexa test, it is unreliable and therefore, not used to determine notability. So, Wikipedia provides guidelines to help the consensus determine notability. Again, the guidelines are as follows:

Criteria for web content Web specific-content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
 * The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
 * This criterion excludes:
 * Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.
 * Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.
 * This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.

The article itself must provide proofs that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section.
 * The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.
 * The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.

When I brought this to the community's attention the first time, people pointed out that the site award was not notable. Fine. Also, the yahoo article just provides a link to EaC under their "New and Notable" section. (Notable? hhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....) But the one article that does qualify EaC as notable according to Wikipedia's notability guidelines is the Sydney Morning Herald. This is a reliable published work (newspaper). This newspaper did not merely report the internet address, but included a paragraph about it, and provided an opinion on the content of the site. One more recently added link is to a document originally published by Stanford University and currently published by Stuttgart University that uses EaC as an example for it's Text mining and Information Retrieval methods. (If Stanford University and Stuttgart University aren't credible sources, I don't know what is!) I've provided the links in an external links section for proof as suggested by the guidelines. Therefore the article falls within Wikipedia's notability guidelines for websites.. If you choose to ignore these guidelines as they are at the time of this AfD, then what is the point of even having guidelines at all?

The next thing I want to comment on is the absolute unbendability of some of the Wikipedians participating in this discussion. It's as if they've already decided that this article should be deleted and refuse to listen to reason. What's the point of having an AfD discussion if people are just going to vote based on their own personal bias. One example is Isotope recently posted "...but since I'm not changing my mind and you are going to continue to fight to keep a reference to your site on Wikipedia, this is pretty much a wasted conversation, so let's just leave it at that." Shouldn't Wikipedians have open enough minds so that those minds could be changed, if a different point of view made sense to them at some point in the discussion? Another example is when I made some points that favored not deleting, instead of admitting that the article falls within the guidelines, Mitsukai says "...you are finding the flaws in the rules that will likely be tightened up after this AFD regardless of the outcome. For that we should thank you, but that does not make your site any more notable" Statements like these make me feel like I'm wasting my time, because no matter what I say, no matter how valid my points may be, it truly seems like several people here will ignore the facts and push for deletion due to their own personal bias. and to me, that is a shame. That kind of railroading adds a rotten stink to the Wikipedia community as a whole.

I also want to point out the complete unfairness of this whole thing. The fact is there are several other articles that are similar (in the fact that they are about lesser known film-oriented websites) and they continue to exist on Wikipedia uncontested, while this article is being severely scrutinized. It's a shame that you folks are ignoring WP:BITE. I'm a newcomer that could add value to Wikipedia, but this whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I do understand the need to delete and edit articles and deal with trolls and sockpuppets, but you folks are taking this too far. Give a newbie the benefit of the doubt, try to work with him to improve his contributions instead of railroading and blackballing him.

There are probably a dozen more things I could point out in these final comments in support of this article and why the behavior of some of the Wikipedians participating in this AfD is far from exemplary, but most of them have been made at one point or another in this AfD.

Also, regarding Stifle moving a huge chunk of this AfD to the discussion page: He suggests reading it, I insist upon it if you are part of the consensus, because it was truly a part of this discussion.

I will sum up these final comments with the following: On a Wikipedia page regarding the administrators decision to delete it states the following:

Deciding whether to delete


 * 1) Whether a "rough consensus" has been achieved (see below)
 * 2) Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants.
 * 3) As a general rule, don't delete pages you nominate for deletion. Let someone else do it.
 * 4) When in doubt, don't delete.

I would particularly like to bring to attention the final guideline on this list (It's bold on the original page, I didn't bold it myself.)

Alot has been said here. You can discount everything I've stated (although you shouldn't) as well as the other newbies that have chimed in in the article's favor (shouldn't discount them either). There are still 2 Wikipedian's who have voted in favor of keeping this article. That alone should create some doubt as to the reasons for deleting. It is not cut and dry, it is not unanimous.

When in doubt, don't delete.--Dave 16:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The condition you're referring to is usually interpreted as when there is no consensus. At the moment, consensus for deletion seems  to be reached (though the AFD will continue until the time counts down).  Frankly, it seems as though you're spending more time arguing split hairs regarding WP deletion procedures than spending time trying to make the page conform to NPOV, which would make things a lot smoother and could even could change some opinions/votes.  The latter, IMO, would be more productive than the former.--み使い Mitsukai 19:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply to Mitsukai - Again, you're referring to NPOV which I will gladly change with guidance.  If the article as it is now is still non NPOV, then what specifically should I change to make make it NPOV?--Dave 20:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have already mentioned some of those things on the article's talk page.--み使い Mitsukai 20:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This is what you said on the talk page: "The article needs extensive NPOV editing, from logo placement to headers and in-article text. Links to press mentions and awards should be delinked and likely placed as in-line mentions in the article itself (probably under a seperate section called "Press and Awards" or the like)"


 * I found no Wikipedia guidelines on logo placement, nor have I heard from you or anyone else a better placement alternative.
 * Headers have already been changed. If you still think it's not NPOV then which specific headers should I change and do you have any suggestions?
 * in-article text has been changed to meet NPOV guidelines, if you still think they are not NPOV, please cite specific examples.
 * You claim the "press and awards" should be de-linked and in a seperate section, yet the notability guidelines suggest that links which prove notability should be provided in an "external links" section.--Dave 20:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Dave, I still have an open mind, but your campaign of wikilawyering to save this article is not swaying me. I understand why you are doing it, but no matter what I say you are going to try and cite some rule, or cast aspersions on the AfD process in general, to justify keeping this article.  I still have seen no evidence that convinces me this site is notable enough to deserve an article. If you have new evidence of notability (an award or article, etc) that you have not already cited and sourced, I will reconsider the notability of your site, but trying to cite procedural reasons or citing rules/guidelines will not sway my opinion. Unless you have new information, further debate is pointless in my opinion.  Sorry.--Isotope23 21:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Isotope23, The points I was trying to make with my "wikilawyering" were that one of the articles I cited falls within the wiki guidelines of notability. Really, it's not a debate. Either it falls within the guidelines or it doesn't. According to the guidelines, the Sydney Morning Herald article falls within the guidelines. I have a new source that shows notability, I've added a Stanford University document that cites EaC for it's text mining algorithm. How many websites are cited in a University course? That's notable.--Dave 21:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)