Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MoviePosterDB.com

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 --JForget 02:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MoviePosterDB.com

MoviePosterDB.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable website, which the editor has attempted to spam across various film articles. Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable and author is spamming. Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 02:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable, and spam. --L. Pistachio (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks like he's just trying to increase his Google Pagerank... --awh (Talk) 07:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. Is that possible with the "nofollow" thing in place? Sarsaparilla (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - It would certainly be better if it was something other than a totally bare-bones article, one that gave some background on the site, what its purpose and philosophy is, what the scope of its holdings are. But notwithstanding the deficiencies of the article as it stands (which can always be changed), I really do have to ask -- what is the essential difference between the site that's the subject of this article, and IMDB? That one's been around longer? That one has corporate backing and the other doesn't? It seems to me that people are jumping on this site and calling it spam without giving it a fair shake, or even looking closely at what the site has to offer. It looks to me like a knee-jerk response rather than a carefully considered one. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 12:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The same argument can be applied for any website, but WP:WEB applies here. Testing under WP:SET, searching for MoviePosterDB.com -site:MoviePosterDB.com OR MoviePosterDB -site:MoviePosterDB.com OR "Internet Movie Poster Database" -site:MoviePosterDB.com shows nothing. In comparison, searching for IMDB.com -site:imdb.com OR IMDB -site:imdb.com OR "Internet Movie Database" -site:imdb.com shows 7,460 results. Any website can cite a general purpose for being included, but here, policy reigns. The record clearly shows that MoviePosterDB.com is not prominent for its own article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:03, 6 February 2008 (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.