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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MovieCodec Forums

[edit]
MovieCodec Forums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Unnotable website that fails WP:N, WP:WEB, and WP:PROMOTION. It was created and hit with sock/meat puppets with a thread on the site asking people to come keep the article going[1] The only three reliable third party sources are purely about the "I am lonely" thread and its creator, Oliver Burkeman, and primarily mention MovieCodec in passing as where he started, not because the site itself is significant. At best, the three sentences on the "i am lonely will anyone speak to me" could be made to create a possible article on Oliver Burkeman as he appears to be an at least somewhat notable newspaper author (who, FYI, is a writer for the Guardian article making that source also a non-third party source). This particular site has already been spammed and deleted three times under moviecodec.com[2], with this new version apparently trying to claim that the forums are notable apart from the actual unnotable site. CSD was twice declined (tagged by two different editors), because it does at least contain marginal third-party sourcing. Original version was pure spam, containing dozens and dozens of links to the forums, a copy of the forum rules, etc and notes that the forum members have been asked to come expand this article.[3]

This site completely fails WP:N (coverage noted above is not signifcant nor about the site, but about Burkeman). It fails all criteria in WP:WEB: The forums have not "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" beyond the single thread which, again, was more about Burkeman and had nothing to do with the site itself. As noted in this first crtieria, the coverage does not include this type of event. The site has not "won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization." nor is the content "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". -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor correction to my above note, Oliver Burkeman did not create the thread. It was an anonymous person. So the thread's slim possibility of notability is also now gone. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I'll go ahead and say it for anybody new to the process: This is a discussion, not a vote; all users are welcome to participate; discussion should focus on the merits of the article or lack thereof; the closing admin will weigh the merits of the arguments presented; and the closing admin will also take into account edit history, to the extent that lack of one could suggest an account create just to inflate the !vote count (and along those lines, may discount votes from IP addresses as possible double-votes). —C.Fred (talk) 01:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not sources. Just because someone links to the site or someone has the link in their signature doesn't mean those are all sources. Please see WP:RS to understand what a reliable source is. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it makes the site more relevant, as it gets traffic from said pages. Even if said signatures or links are not published in a magazine doesn't make it any less relevant, after all this is the information age, the internet is a better source for knowledge than a magazine you might fine down from at your local shop, and this is a site that kind of compounds said information, am I right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChibiDiscoDhaos (talk • contribs) 01:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. As note multiple times above (and in the lengthy note I left on your talk page), Wikipedia has notability guidelines for what is and is not included. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place that compounds every drop of information available. WP:WEB spells out what criteria are used to determine if a website is notable for inclusion or not. And no, links from personal sites are not relevant, nor is how much traffic your site gets are not signs of notability. Coverage by reliable, third-party sources is.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also the Alexa rank is based largely on people coming to the site to download codecs. It has nothing to do with the forums or this sites one minor claim to notability. Ridernyc (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are many online sources which are as reliable as print magazines. The key is the editorial policy of the publication: are articles vetted and fact-checked? That's why news sources (e.g., Wired, the Wall Street Journal) are reliable but blogs generally are not. As for Alexa, longstanding consensus is that Alexa rank is not an indicator of a site's notability. —C.Fred (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I guess it's fair enough to say that the "i am lonely thread" is whats notable not the website.Omegakingboo (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2009 (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.
More