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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Movie TV Tech Geeks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Reviewed through NPP. Not seeing any indication of notability for this pop culture website. Sources are an Alexa listing, their own website, passing mentions that don't say anything more than "Movie TV Tech Geeks reported that..." , e.g. [1][2][3], and some non-notable awards/PR stuff [4][5]. Through WP:BEFORE, I was unable to find any coverage of this website that would satisfy WP:WEBCRIT. Spicy (talk) 07:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 07:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 07:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As news organizations report the news, they don't become the news so there is rarely going to be news stories about them. Thus, I used citations from reputable news organizations like The Washington Post and Entertainment Weekly who sourced this news organization. Being cited from top news sites shows the trustworthiness and legitimacy of a news site. I added these after the article was marked for deletion as I was trying to follow Wikipedia's guidelines exactly. As the founder of the news site is a filmmaker who has two award winning films listed in Wikipedia (Thoth documentary and Your Mommy Kills Animals), that also seemed to give this article the legitimacy needed. If more is needed, please let me know as I have literally spent years trying to better understand Wikipedia's rules. Thank you ~ Gooma2Gooma2 (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-02 ✍️ create

• Weak keep This site appears to have gotten some reliable coverage.★Trekker (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Treker, what coverage are you seeing? While it's true that the site has been mentioned in some reliable sources, WP:GNG is very clear that passing mentions do not contribute to notability. The sum total of the coverage in the Entertainment Weekly source is a credit for one picture [6] and I don't see where the Washington Post article even mentions it at all (maybe the author pasted in the wrong link?) [7]. Their content being used by major sites may indicate that they are "trustworthy and legitimate", but it doesn't indicate that they are notable according to Wikipedia's standards if those sources do not discuss the website in depth. Notability is not inherited from being founded by a notable person, either. Spicy (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question of inherited notability (the Founder of site) was not the sole reason for the article being notable. It was only yet another factor. As the not inherited states, "notability not being inherited is not by itself grounds for deletion."Gooma2 (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, where it states 'find sources' on the article page, you can find them under 'News,' 'Books,' ^[1] and 'Scholar.'^[2]. Having such a combination of sources from a wide variety covering a wide space of time should surely prove this to be a notable article worthy of being included in Wikipedia.

• Strong keep I have confirmed with the photo editor at Entertainment Weekly that it is actually three (3) photos they have used from the subject. I also confirmed with the journalist at The Washington Post that they have sourced the site and he did not post in the wrong link. He was more perplexed at the thought of Wikipedia questioning the veracity of The Washington Post's reporting. Twelve more respected source citations have been added to the article proving 'notability' as per Wikipedia's standards which states, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." WP:GNG I have been more than confused that I have repeatedly asked for help in making this article fit exactly into the Wikipedia standard but have gotten no answer. I have used my husband, who is a contract lawyer to scour the language, and he is not seeing how this article doesn't fall within the standards set in Wikipedia. Gooma2 (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Gooma2[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.