Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monsters and Critics (3rd nomination)
- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Monsters and Critics[edit]
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Monsters and Critics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails general notability guideline. tagged for notability issues since december 2020. ltbdl (talk) 07:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Entertainment. ltbdl (talk) 07:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete It may have been notable in 2010 (and reading through that nom is an exercise in 'why did we keep this'), but it's now yet another churnalism site which manipulates social media and news aggregators to post low-quality 'Why did thing happen in media? Overexplain the thing with SEO words/paragraphs meant for ginger cats who currently don't have the brain cell', and it no longer covers its subject area, as its current specialty seems to be crap like this, which makes the reader think we don't know who Shaft was and that Whoopi Goldberg was somehow offensive for mentioning his catchphrase this morning. We may have cited it in the past as the article claims, but we certainly aren't for unexpectional soap pre-emptions now. Nate • (chatter) 01:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- MrSchimpf,
It may have been notable in 2010
Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary
Also, most of your argument is "I don't like it", you're obviously entitled to your opinion but none of that is a reason for deletion. We have articles on many murderers, rapists and Crazy Frog and they aren't very likeable either. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- MrSchimpf,
- Comment I'm allowed to disagree with the original two closes and document that it had been devoted to actual criticism and news at one time, but was purchased by a clickbait purveyor in 2017 and its trust and N has severely declined since then; whatever trust it had in the past has declined in the same way Comic Book Resources has, for goldfish recaps of The View and Real Housewives. Finally, the 'lot of work' that was promised by a keep vote in 2010 was never done, and we've tightened up since then, and whatever good content they had in the past is hard to find purposefully. Nate • (chatter) 18:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- MrSchimpf, your arguments are fine to argue why you think it's a bad source, but they say nothing about notability.
its trust and N has severely declined since then
Its notability has not declined since then, because notability is not temporary. It can't decline. In this particular case, Monsters and Critics was probably never notable to begin with, at least not by the current standards for notability. But crappiness, or being disgusting clickbait yada yada yada, regardless of how bad something is, does not affect notability. Yes, you're allowed to document that in your opinion this source went down the drain, but it's not relevant in AfD. It would be relevant on WP:RSN, though. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- MrSchimpf, your arguments are fine to argue why you think it's a bad source, but they say nothing about notability.
- Comment I'm allowed to disagree with the original two closes and document that it had been devoted to actual criticism and news at one time, but was purchased by a clickbait purveyor in 2017 and its trust and N has severely declined since then; whatever trust it had in the past has declined in the same way Comic Book Resources has, for goldfish recaps of The View and Real Housewives. Finally, the 'lot of work' that was promised by a keep vote in 2010 was never done, and we've tightened up since then, and whatever good content they had in the past is hard to find purposefully. Nate • (chatter) 18:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - The cited sources vaguely mentioned the site (little to no SIGCOV from reliable sources), one of the citations is from the website itself (one non-independent source), and last, but not least, a Google Search with the "News" and "All" filters give nothing but most of the website's tabloid articles. — Davest3r08 (^_^) (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - Various sources have referenced Monsters and Critics. Not just The New York Times,[1] Los Angeles Times,[2] and BBC News[3] as mentioned in the article, also The Washington Post, ABC News, The Mary Sue (The Mary Sue), CinemaBlend (CinemaBlend), International Business Times (International Business Times) have referenced Monsters and Critics. I found these by searching Google News for "Monsters and Critics" in the time period 2000-2012. But none of these actually cover Monsters and Critics itself, and a search for the name of either founder + "Monsters and Critics" yielded little more than Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks and social media. If reliable sources that actually cover Monsters and Critics itself can be found my vote should be considered invalid, but right now I don't see any.
In previous deletion discussions it has been said that being referenced frequently makes the site influential and therefore notable. While on a personal level I generally tend to agree we should give considerable weight to such things, there's a major problem here: we can't write an unbiased or balanced article about Monsters and Critics because no sources to support any statement are known to exist, so all we can really do is stating some uncontroversial facts using primary sources. That's not enough for an article. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- ^ Cowles, Gregory (October 16, 2008). "The Plot Thins". The New York Times. Retrieved April 20, 2014.
- ^ de Turenne, Veronique (March 11, 2008). "Today in Britney: piecing together the story". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved April 20, 2014.
- ^ Russell, Jamie (September 21, 2004). "High Noon - 21st September 2004". BBC News. Retrieved April 20, 2014.
- 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.