Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flixster

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. Luna Santin 04:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flixster

Flixster (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Non notable website, article reads like advertisement/spam, would have CSD or prod, but another user on IRC would have contested MECU≈talk 03:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep, site is at 2400 Alexa rank which is good for <1 year old. chart Minor mentions in media[1][2][3], possibly a bit early. Seems to be driven by word-of-mouth & blogs so far. --Dhartung | Talk 18:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Looks a lot like COI or at least OR. An article with this title has already been speedied [4] as A7. If it's possible, could an admin compare the content of this article with the deleted one please? -- IslaySolomon | talk 22:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no claim of notability in the article. I place no reliance at all on Alexa rank. Eludium-q36 18:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - Flixster is well-known amongst film fans, predominantly teenagers. The Alexa rank is reliant because it shows how popular a website is, and for a site less than 1 year old, as has been said, a rank of 2,400 is quite good Enton 18:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:WEB... Addhoc 18:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I heard of this website a while back in a printed newspaper. Website is relatively new, so not a surprise there aren't a huge number of notable publications about it, but did find some online mentions which, while not all about Flixster, refer to it as a fact of the Web in the same breath as MySpace/YouTube, and a quickly growing site: BBC News Film Stew Internet data. Article itself needs improving, but is not incapable of being a good article. There are plenty of stubs on Wikipedia that have the capability of growing if not deleted too early and I think this is one of them. GDallimore 12:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - of the external references above, only the BBC one seems like a reliable source, and it only mentions Flixster in passing -- the site is not the subject of the article. So, I reckon it fails verifiability and notability, although given its Alexa rank, it may become notable in due course. --DeLarge 17:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment please see my edits. Although DeLarge may disagree with the notability of some of the references, the net is run by blog-makers these days. And having a regular commentor for the BBC mention Flixster in passing as if it were something everyone should know about it a positive, rather than a negative point for notability.GDallimore 18:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Reply -- we'll have to agree to disagree on several points; (i) The entire quote from the BBC seemed like a bit of name-dropping to me -- "look at the esoteric sites I've heard of, I must be a commentator with my finger on the pulse" -- but that's just my cynical opinion. (ii) The fact that there's 100x more bloggers than a couple of years ago doesn't make them more reliable, which is why they're explicitly mentioned as a largely unacceptable source (see "Using online and self-published sources"). Having said all that, it does look a lot better than when it was nominated, and probably wouldn't have come under the scrutiny of an AfD if the original editors had put in the effort you did. PS I thought the net was run by the same porn barons and online gambling sites as always... --DeLarge 21:44, 23 January 2007 (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.