Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Movie Database

Add links
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. Will userfy if someone wants to try to improve it. MelanieN (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Movie Database

[edit]
The Movie Database (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)

No significant, independent and reliable sources. Dirk Beetstra T C 17:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It's a fledgling website competing with a massive commercial market leader (IMDb), so it's hardly going to command an international news following, is it, given it's a db that aggregates data used by non-mainstream smaller operations. The links given clearly summate it's presence regardless of this. Jimthing (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, you are admitting that it is too early for this article to have notability, and hence that it is only here to promote the website? --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't put words in my mouth, you know full well what is meant by such a comment, without being trite about it. Jimthing (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the same what landed this site on the blacklist:spam. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jim - all of the references are clearly not WP:RS, I'm sure you know that. The only one is (The Guardian), does not mention the subject. I wasn't able to find anything at all when searching, but that may be attributable to the fairly generic title of the site. Do you have anything at all that would meet our criteria? Kuru (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the article history is a little complex. Travisbell wrote a fairly neutral userspace draft which he did not move to mainspace. It looks like it was copied, to some extent, by Jimthing into mainspace without attribution. Amortias then did a histmerge to set the attribution. Kuru (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
yes, the COI aside, he did write a very neutral draft. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm actually on Imdb and Tmdb and I find its more notable than most of the sites listed here including BMDb and Christian Film Database. If anything, it needs improvement and Travis Bell is the creator of the site but the article is very neutral and not at all promotional and its Alexa Ranking is way better than most listed in the category mentioned above. I'll put it on the same level as Douban (which i also contribute too) even though i do not understand a single word of mandarin or cantonese :P . The site has been mentioned in the media but because its non-commerical (like us), it gets a lesser mention than a site like, Imdb.COM so you can't really claim a site fails WP:WEBCRIT just because it does not promote itself well or at all.--Stemoc 02:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"it does not promote itself well or at all", you do realise that Travis Bell, the site owner, created the article himself, right? It indeed needs improvement, by addition of sources that show that it is notable enough. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ofcourse the owner of the site created it but was it promotion? does the site sell stuff?, does the site gain monetarily from being on wikipedia? does the owner of the site gain something from listing the site here? he could have paid someone to add an article here but he did it himself and it was indeed written well without a hint of it being promotional. I bet Jimmy Wales or Larry Sanger never edited the Wikipedia article either..oh wait!, Larry (the so-called co-founder of wikipedia) created the article of "his" project on "his" project (lol)..There are many many others like this (where the owner of a site or product created an article on the said product/site here) and as i said above, the article needs improvement and a few more source information/citings and yes the site was definitely not eligible for inclusion back in 2008, it is now...Notability is gained through time and I can honestly say, compared to other similar articles linked above in that other category, the site is indeed notable.--Stemoc 04:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Stemoc: You mentioned "the site has been mentioned in the media", could you link to some of those mentions? As noted above, I'm simply coming up blank in searches, but that may be due to the site's common name. Kuru (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stemoc, promotion can be achieved whether there is a product being sold or not. Non-profit groups can still promote. An individual can promote him/herself for the purpose of gaining attention. And those of us who have been alive long enough know that there have been many free internet services that achieved multi-million dollar appraisals, so the lack of a specific product for sale does not mean that promotion was not occurring. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability is not gained through time or Alexa rating. Notability is gained through being noted in reliable sources, and so far this article has none. - MrOllie (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not seem to have significant coverage in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As noted in my requests, I can't find any reliable sourcing. The references given in the article now are terrible: forum posts, directories, and a reddit discussion? The BBC and Guardian refs are to support the claim that the IMDB is dropping its forums, and do nto mention TMDB at all. I wasn't able to find anything else, and queries above were not answered. I don't see how this meets WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT, and no policy based argument has been made. I'm glad that some people like the site; it is a nice endeavor. Kuru (talk) 03:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So I gather a user's opinion is not worth a cent unless he has a certain status or privileges on this site. I was honestly thinking of contributing in the future, but if this is your general attitude towards new users I might have to reconsider. Also, you didn't even bother signing "your contribution". Vmavra (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No offense is intended, the SPA tag is standard in situations such as this one where external web forums are discussing an article's deletion. - MrOllie (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still looks like an attempt to automatically belittle and discredit new users. No offense, @MrOllie: Vmavra (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vmavra: 'such trivialities' .. Vmavra, we have policies and guidelines that guide us to decide what is notable enough for inclusion. People saying that they are daily users is not enough. A bar has to be put somewhere, and our bar is that significant, reliable, independent sources must have noticed the existence and written about the subject. People with close contact with the owners of the site have not been able to provide us with those, nor have others who have commented here. The subject is not notable (yet). --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft in the hope that additional references will become available. It's not a viable article at present--the references are simply too weak. Some are not in reliable sources, and others don't talk about the db at all. (And we have always defined "promotion" to mean advocacy ,commercial or non commercial, or any thing at all, even free projects) DGG ( talk ) 08:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny, there's German and Portuguese WP articles for TMDb, but potentially none for English-language speakers. While we understand the sources argument, I think some probation period is justifiable, as clearly the site exists and there are at least direct links to it that show it exists, its history/stats, and what it does. Jimthing (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITEXISTS. Jim, one of the other editors at TMDB hit the nail on the head: "Rather than a specific focus on SEO, it would probably be best to just keep focusing on improving the quality of data." At this point, more attempts at promotion are likely to be counterproductive, as will works of "commissioned" PR. If you're really trying to improve the site, focus inward and let the recognition happen organically. Kuru (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 23:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It sounds really interesting, and the flap over IMDB suddenly deleting their comments raises the ever-interesting censorship issue. These days, anything having to do with the rich of powerful keeping anyone else from having their say is in the headlines (fake news, anybody?). I can help repair the article, and if there's a rush (i.e., a deadline, then move it into userspace). Check out my user page for a few dozen of the hundreds of article I've started - and then had to rescue from the deletionists. Anything can be fixed. Don't delete it, unless editing has ceased and everyone's simply given up on whipping it into shape. Thanks for listening. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can help repair the article – please do go ahead and edit away. Any further editing is welcomed. Jimthing (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimthing: You have already voted keep once so you need to strike through this post. MarnetteD|Talk 01:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Messed up that ping so post this one @Jimthing:. MarnetteD|Talk 01:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's been relisted, so not the same AfD. Jimthing (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It has been listed at other wikiprojects not relisted. At least the closing admin will be aware of that you voted twice. MarnetteD|Talk 02:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus." Jimthing (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEBCRIT. There does not seem to be any significant coverage in reliable sources so the only other criteria that can potentially mitigate its existence is if it has received independent recognition per WP:WEBCRIT. Also, please note that it is policy bases rationales that count, not votes. Betty Logan (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORPDEPTH. It is possible that it will meet that criteria one day. If that happens it can be recreated. MarnetteD|Talk 02:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with regret. I want an open competitor to IMDb, and wish TMDB success; but I don't see this fledgling website as getting sufficient coverage to meet Wikipedia notability requirements. I hope to see the site is successful, and therefore gets coverage and merits an article, but it's too soon. TJRC (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft so this article can continue to be worked on as independent, significant, and reliable sources become available. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP - there is some good, eventually source-able, content in this article which could be developed and improved. Also, there is not currently consensus on either side of this discussion, which has already continued for an extended period. - tucoxn\talk 17:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To add to my previous comments. Sure, maybe a lack of high-end sources in relation to its use purely as a website a la IMDb-type usage, but the information that is gathered via the site does nonetheless form a major component as part of both media management software (e.g. Plex, Kodi, et al.), and as a component of other online sites data (e.g. Letterboxd et al.) and software management (themoviedb.org/apps ). There are a great many things both on and off WP that won't/haven't received massive press attention, because they are technical things that do not necessarily make for great reporting subject matter. To reiterate, it's been around a decent amount of time, since 2008, and has been running successfully ever since, as evidenced by its continued usage on said other platforms for their data usage. And there are quotes in there from some of these sites, evidencing its existence and usage as a data source. Jimthing (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Movie_Database&oldid=1069199996"