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 Keep. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monsters and Critics

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Fails WP:WEB and WP:N. In the 3+ years since the last AfD, no significant coverage of this site has been found. It gets "Google News" hits primarily because it is pulled as part of its resources, which in itself does not make the site notable. While it meets the criteria for being a reliable source for critical reception sections of media articles, it is not in fact notable. In the end, its content has not "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself", neither the site nor content has "won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization", and as it is a self-published work, the content is not "distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster". Its claimed "hits" are not an indicator of notability, as they are neither validated numbers nor do they make up for the basic lack of actual reliable, third-party coverage of the site. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable site. Doesn't stand up to WP:WEB. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 10:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just for starters, it appears that its reviews are quoted widely in books -- as to the books themselves. See Gbooks search.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:N via WP:GNG. Note WP:WEB is a descriptor of what constitutes web-specific content, and does itself actually offer criteria for determining a website's notability. For that we use the GNG in determining the notability. Aside from that, as the nomiator has already stated that Monters and Critics is a Relable Source, it would seem prudent to keep and expand the article so that our readers, in seeing it used as a reference, would then be able to read an article about THIS reliable source so as to better understand what the site offers and what makes it reliable. Further, in the assertion that it has not been improved in 3+ years, with respects, I find WP:NOEFFORT to be an unconvincing argument. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – sorry, but I'm not seeing how it meets WP:WEB or the general guideline, even after looking at the Google Books results; every result I see has "according to Monsters and Critics...", which is not enough in my view. –MuZemike 18:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that Monsters & Critics does not constitute web-specific content? That's all that WP:WEB really has to offer... a descriptor. My specific question here is only in regards the assertion that it fails WEB's "This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia should avoid articles about web sites that could be interpreted as advertising. For material published on the web to have its own article in Wikipedia, it should be notable and of historical significance. Wikipedia articles about web content should use citations from reliable sources." I believe it has proven its historical significance through its influence, as shown by searches. Sourcing is a surmountable issue and as such is not cause for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Schmidt.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news search shows many news sources mentioning this website. [1] Dream Focus 20:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and work to get better third party references The problem is there are too many references to it in Google News, picking out a review of the company is hard when there are over 100 news articles referencing the website for the reviews of movies they host. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not merely notable , but famous, and the sources show it. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just did some (mostly) formatting cleanup on the article. There's no doubt that the article itself needs (a lot of!) work, but to assert that Monsters & Critics itself is non-notable seems a little... er, pointy? I mean... we use it as a reference all over Wikipedia itself. If there were actual controversial information in the article or something then I could understand deleting it, but there's nothing obvious that I see that is wrong with the article itself. Like I said, it definitely needs to be improved, but holding a metaphorical gun to it's head doesn't seem to be the most constructive action to take.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 14:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have a really hard time finding any sources actually about Monsters and Critics, but with so many references to them in all kinds of media, I think M&C is notable anyway. --Apoc2400 (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has potential to meet wiki requirements. --swissmark ) (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC) — swissmark (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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.