Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MovieWeb

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 no consensus. Despite the clear numerical majority that voted to keep this article, I was very close to closing this discussion with a consensus to delete. The primary issue is finding sources that establish the notability of the subject, per WP:GNG. There are clearly plenty of sources that establish the existence of MovieWeb, but very few (if any) that establish its notability. The only reason I didn't close with a consensus to delete is because there were a few borderline sources provided that covered the subject in a tenuous way, but there is plenty of room to argue that these sources don't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. My recommendation would be to give the proponents of this article a few months to dig up better sources, and then nominate it for deletion again after some time has passed. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MovieWeb

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. --Ferien (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Websites. --Ferien (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, it has third party mentions from strong sources such as the LA Times, it needs expanding but I don't believe it warrants deletion. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 15:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It has mentions, and some sites quote its reviews, but I don't find anything substantial about it. It seems to be a useful source of movie reviews of a popular nature. Compare this to the information about Rotten Tomatoes - well, no comparison. Lamona (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article had many more substantial citations before it was gutted in April 2018. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Darkwarriorblake. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 21:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a weak article in its current form, and needs a lot of work, but I agree that a sufficient number of verifiable secondary sources exists to lean strongly toward WP:WEBCRIT and to avoid deletion. Ppt91 (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful to cite those sources here so we can see what you are using for your evaluation. Lamona (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs work, but MovieWeb has been mentioned (or used) in several third party reliable sources. They must feel they are notable enough to repost interviews that MovieWeb has done — The Hollywood Reporter, IndieWire And here the The Hollywood Reporter uses them as a source for their reporting. Mike Allen 22:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Each of those is a short (often less than an entire sentence) quote from a MovieWeb interview. I think it's clear that people use MovieWeb to look up information about movies, but we still need significant, 3rd party sources for the WP article. Lamona (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article does need improvement but Afd is not cleanup. Longstanding notable film website - and there are secondary sources available - some of which I have added. Also - Movieweb has been a longstanding entry within Plunkett's Entertainment & Media Industry Almanac[1] ResonantDis_tortion 07:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You added Business Wire, but that is an outlet for press releases, and not an independent source. There is not one substantive, independent source for this web site. Lamona (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes agreed Business Wire is a press release that does not establish WP:GNG - but I added more refs including a (admittedly short) review of the MovieWeb site from the Los Angeles Times. ResonantDis_tortion 17:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That short review is 6 sentences. And so far it's the longest info about MovieWeb in an independent source. Deseret news 404's, unfortunately. The Directory of Web Sites is 2 sentences. The LA Times has 3 sentences of which one is: "Though the site is packed with inane fluff, it does distinguish between high- and low-bandwidth pages." So in spite of folks above saying that this is an essential movie site, we still do not have an independent source that concurs. If the non-independent sources (the vast majority here) were removed there would be almost no sourced content in this article. I don't see how it can be kept under those circumstances. Lamona (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it manages to scrape by GNG with this coverage about them being sued.★Trekker (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC) These books 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 also have some coverage.★Trekker (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All but one of those books is a listing in a list of web sites, maybe 25 words at most. (Actually, one is mention that is not even a full sentence.) The one that is longer is a short article in PC magazine, which Google probably digitized from a bound volume. I don't think that being sued (and that article is less than a page) achieves notability. Again, I am surprised at the advocacy for this article without addressing the actual notability guidelines. Lamona (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having coverage in a reliable publication that you got sued indicates notability. And an article being digitized by Google has no bearing or relevancy to anything unless you're arguing that PC magazine is unreliable in the first place.★Trekker (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the references offered as "coverage" are one-liners. When asked to provide evidence of notability it is best to pick two or three that do the job, rather than including lots that don't add anything. The two paragraphs in this one4 are located in the "special advertising section" and are clearly not independent. BruceThomson (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.