Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dread Central (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dread Central

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Dread Central Articles for deletion/Dread Central (2nd nomination)
Dread Central (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Creator contests speedy deletion for non-notability. Original AfD discussion was last year, before the web page actually went up, so a new discussion is appropriate. FisherQueen (Talk) 17:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete trivial mentions dont give notability to a subject. Corpx 20:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is an extensive (and somewhat unorganized) discussion of the merits on keeping the article on the Dread Central talk page. I'm not voting this time because I have a bias (I about lost my mind trying to remove Dread Central spam last year). Last time I would have voted to delete (and I might have if I check the logs), but this time I'd probably be leaning towards a very weak keep. Chicken Wing 03:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

*Weak Keep. It's articles have been featured in independent non-trivial publications. Needs to be categorized, wikified, and expanded. --Absurdist 19:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. I added some categories to the article that are applicable. Valuerockr 02:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)— Valuerockr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wafulz 19:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete While I like the site and have used it in the past I agree with Wafulz - those mentions are very minor and/or not WP:RS. Find better sources and I'd be happy to vote to keep but as it stands it it doesn't measure up. I see it was deleted comprehensively a year ago and recreated - I'd suggest if someone is set on creating this article they should use their sandbox to get it up to speed (and get input) or this could keep going around. (Emperor 23:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC))
  • Comment. We are a news and review site, these publications feature our quotes. Variety is hardly trivial and having your quotes reprinted in it, much more, highlighted in a best of article is pretty good recognition of what you do (Consider DreadCentral AND Steve Barton's quotes appear there). Having your podcast highlighted on a best of the net podcast show is not too bad either. Be sure to drop by the Dread Central talk page theres a lot more there for your consideration. Valuerockr 00:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - if the Variety piece was about you then that would count but it isn't (I've seen much more extensive mentions queried) - that only counts as a trivial mention. As I say I have looked through what you have supplied and they fit the criteria (I think the best is [1]) (Emperor 00:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
  • Comment I suppose, but the fact that it was a write up on the best blurbs of the year seemed to make it more than a trivial mention. That was my point, to have our blurbs listed as the best along with people like Larry King is fairly notable I would imagine. The problem here is theres very little professional review and highlight of publications like us.Valuerockr 01:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment yes it can be tricky - the bar isn't any higher than for other entries but the lack of coverage can make things difficult. As well as films I also work on comics and they tend not to get mainstream media coverage. With that in mind you might want to have a look at some of the comics web sites which have faced similar struggles like Newsarama and Comic Book Resources - the former made it on this list [2] (which probably saved it) and the latter is on a number of library lists of good resources. This might give you another angle of attack. (Emperor 01:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
  • Delete. I've silently watched the ongoing saga that is Dead Central and The Horror Channel. DC does some great work, but seems to have stolen the name from The Horror Channel (as i remember it, dreadcentral.com forwarded to horrorchannel.com for years). For further proof, myspace.com/horrorchannel has been converted into a Dread Central site and the other guys have had to start over at /THEhorrorchannel. A lot I've read about the 'breakup' seems fishy and it seems like these guys pulled the carpet out from under The Horror Channel. I wouldn't be surprised to see a cease and desist order coming from The Horror Channel any day now. The Dread Central name was basically stolen from them. My two cents. EDIT: I posted this is the Discussion section but not here (sorry, new to this): "...please refer to [3] ... an ongoing discussion regarding the shananigans in this entry. Every single person editing/discussing this entry is either a Dread Central staff member or fanatical forum-goer...". Hope this helps the decision along.Greymatter0 02:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC) — Greymatter0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete. I wasn't going to vote to delete originally because I was assuming good faith, but the entire article appears to be one big conflict of interest nightmare. While we're at it, we might consider a vote to delete the articles for the Dread Central writers (Kyra Schon and Scott A. Johnson) that appear on Wikipedia as well as the article entry for The Horror Channel. Chicken Wing 02:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Since you mention it, you can plainly see on The Horror Channel kwlow was maintaining the entry until he was no longer with the company - at which time it seems he began adding information about Dread Central's seperation and an external link to their website. Looks like this eventually led to the entry being protected. Greymatter0 02:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Ranting removed...
Sorry for my rant. You want to question my integrity thats fine. I busted my ass for that place and was shit on in thanks. We all were. So to be called a thief and have someone assume we were the wrongdoers in that fall out cuts pretty deep still. But you dont have to believe me and I wouldnt expect you too either. It will say that it stings a bit to be held in judgement. You may have followed what happened, I had to live it. And I am still living with it now as I pay off the debt I sank myself in so I could work for them.
By all means delete our entry. But dont take down the others, even The Horror Channel listing should stay. After all is said and done a horror channel is something many of us still care to see a reality. Though I dont think they even know its there, it's listing is valid in Wikipedia as a notable endeavor regardless of what ultimately happened.
Ill see to it that none of our "fanatical" forum members give you guys grief either. I for one understand and respect what you all are doing here. Thanks for the considerationValuerockr 12:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Valuerockr, I for one can understand where you're coming from. However, the obvious burning passions behind your actions here are a red flag for this entire entry. Greymatter0 12:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Greymatter0, your comments about us stealing the Dread Central name from the Horror Channel are quite fictional. Perhaps fact checking would be a good idea when you want to accuse a group of hard working people of theft, especially if you want to be a Wiki editor. Makes sense, I am sure. After this much trouble over one Wiki entry I think it is time to delete the Dread Central listing. Don't forget, fanatical people are running along both sides of the fence here, not just DC fans.krytensyxx 8:58, 17 July 2007 (EST)
  • Comment. When I said DONT come here and cause problems I was talking to staff as well Kryten :) Im only here responding to the courtesy Greymatter0 extended me by sympathizing with my position. Im wholey serious about letting this issue drop and accepting the vote without further contest Valuerockr 13:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I appreciate that :) And I have remained completely neutral in my edits and been 100% upfront about who I am. Wikipedia's own policy states that conflicts of interest are frowned on but not 100% disallowed. I have stated my case quiet well I think and what ever happens happens at this point. My only motivation with my actions were to state my case for inclusion based off things many of us deem notable. And that is in the long, albeit disorganized Talk page for the article. All I ask is that people consider all the items presented there in making their decision. Theres a lot of notable things in this world that would never be listed here unless someone with a conflict of interest didnt take the time to submit it, doesnt make the subjects any less worthy of inclusion. Thanks again for the consideration Valuerockr 13:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


  • Change vote to Delete. It may be possible to support a claim for notability for this website, but the third-party sources now referenced only reprint one-sentence movie reviews. That amounts to a reprint of a press release, which is trivial per WP:WEB. Citations of non-trivial sources written about this website, not just reprinting reviews, must be included to establish notability. In addition, any rewrite of this article should not include original research first-hand accounts.--Absurdist 01:34, 18 July 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.