Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet Horror 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 redirect to Antony Coia. I am discounting the solitary "keep" opinion by Pizzole because of their disruptive conduct related to this discussion, which includes filing three frivolous retaliatory AfDs. Everybody else agrees that this does not currently merit an article.  Sandstein  09:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Horror Movie Database[edit]

Internet Horror 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)

Fails WP:GNG/WP:WEB; the only secondary sources given are Italian blogs. Google has only fourteen results for the phrase "Internet Horror Movie Database", most of them Facebook posts. McGeddon (talk) 13:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google list it both as Internet Horror Movie Database or iHORRORdb.com or iHoRRORdb. You can find filmmaker, website, social accounts and even IMDB talk about the Internet Horror Movie DatabasePizzole (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a search for "iHoRRORdb" shows the same fourteen results. "iHoRRORdb.com" has 45 results, but most of them are from what seems to be a broken site-scraping domain at viewsline.com, which has mirrored some of its articles. You'll need to demonstrate that the website has received detailed coverage in some reliable non-blog sources, to show that it meets WP:WEB. --McGeddon (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@McGeddon:I added another source: http://www.darkveins.com/153069-ihorrordb-nasce-linternet-horror-movie-database/Pizzole (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I search it in Google as "ihorrordb.com" i find "About 5,330 results (0.34 seconds)" Pizzole (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I get "About 5,360 results (0.54 seconds)", but if I click through to page 6 it becomes "Page 5 of 45 results". But sorry, I don't mean to imply that the number of WP:GOOGLEHITS are actually important - just that I confidently wasn't able to find any reliable sources when I used Google to check, because it was easy to check every result. darkveins.com seemed to be just another Italian blog. --McGeddon (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@McGeddon: darkveins is very popular between horror filmmaker all around the world. Check out their interviews: http://www.darkveins.com/speciali/Pizzole (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Antony Coia article, Coia owns the Internet Horror Movie Database and is an "admin" on darkveins, so darkveins.com is not "independent of the subject", as WP:GNG requires. --McGeddon (talk) 10:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@McGeddon: You are right for the darkveins article. (Pizzole (talk) 11:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
@McGeddon: The real problem it isn't the source. The database is the only in the genre and it has over 7000 titles and over 50000 celebrities and tons of pics you will never find on IMDB.Pizzole (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not surprised that we can't find many sources for this website. Assuming that the launch information is accurate, this database is only active for less than two months. We typically have some trouble finding third-party information for websites which are older, larger, and a bit more notable. For example, the Internet Movie Database is active since 1990 but its article only contains about 40 citations and some of them are sourced from the Database itself. Dimadick (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added this: "==Legal online streaming service== In October 10, 2015, iHORRORdb starts a free service of legal streaming. First movies added to the service are The Sender, Circle of Eight, Rumpelstilskin, Shanks, Ghost Team One, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, Beneath and The Loved Ones from Paramount Pictures." (Pizzole (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
It's fine that you added it and nice that they offer a streaming service, but that does make the website notable. Read WP:N, WP:RS, WP:WEB, and WP:ORG. Bast, Schmidt, Michael Q. 01:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MichaelQSchmidt:What makes the site notable it isn't the streaming service or one, four, or ten articles about it on blogs or magazines (as wrote @Dimadick:). What makes it notable is that it's the only horror movie database online and that it has over 7000 titles, 50.000 celebrity pages and tons of images. And of course, that there are well established sources (for the same genre) that prove that. (Pizzole (talk) 09:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
@MichaelQSchmidt: I have examined the General notability guideline. I can see nothing wrong with the first two sources I attached (NonSoloGore is a famous italian blog about Independent Cinema. Horror Fest is the website of an Horror Festival property of it:Torino Comics). You talk about blog but in guideline I can't see objections about blogs. And a blog can be as fomous as a magazine. I think that all points have been respected. (Pizzole (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
@Pizzole: Actually what it does and how large its database is does not make it notable. And being the first of a kind could make it so IF as a "first" or "largest" it has the requisite coverage and analysis in multiple independent reliable sources, even if only Italian sources. And two is two... not really a decent multiple. Further, even as a blog (they are not automatically disqualified) Non Solo Gore could be a nice beginning IF WP:RSN determines the site meets the criteria at WP:RS, but I will caution that a horror fest website is not exactly independent of its own festivals. Schmidt, Michael Q. 03:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MichaelQSchmidt:In my article there are three sources. Where are the sources for pages like these? Internet Movie Firearms Database, AlloCiné, filmportal.de, BFI Film & TV Database, Japanese Movie Database? Sorry, I can't understand the difference. Can you explain what do you mean with "a horror fest website is not exactly independent of its own festivals"? Thank you. (Pizzole (talk) 07:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
@Pizzole: First, go read WP:WAX. And though your examples are not subjects of this deletion discussion THEY, far far more than does IHMDb, are subject of analysis and commentary in multiples of multiple reliable sources. THAT is the difference. Bring forth multiple independent reliable sources (not just three or four) that discuss IHMDb itself directly and in detail (even if non-English sources) and you'd go far to show the website as having suitable notability. Schmidt, Michael Q. 08:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: I have found another source about iHORRORdb: * Other News for iHORRORdb launch (Pizzole (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC))"[reply]

Its name being Gossip Day does not bode well for "reliability" on your cause, but it does appear to have a staff, so go ask about it over at WP:RSN. Schmidt, Michael Q. 11:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MichaelQSchmidt: It seems it is a Google News italian editor. I've added a question about it on the page you linked me. Sorry for my ignorance in Wikipedia things. :D(Pizzole (talk) 11:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete per se "GossipDay" is not a reliable source. This article is entirely a promotion for a site which is a commercial site -- selling movies. Merging commercial ads into any BLP is "not done" on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Collect: You are completely wrong. The website don't sell movies. It offer a free service of courtesy link to buy them on Amazon but there isn't any affiliation between the two site. @MichaelQSchmidt: Help me, Collect are responsible for vandalism in Antony Coia. I think that there are interests.(Pizzole (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Note: The site has an "ADVERTISE HERE" banner. Clicking on "Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2" shows a clear "$ Buy Now" choice - linking to Amazon (from which the referring site gets a cut). It is selling movies by any meaning of the term. Ditto for the other movies with "free streaming". And when a site offers "free streaming" and then asks "Own the rights?" it suggests that they are streaming without clear rights to do so. The site is "commercial" ab initio, and seeks to make money from its existence in itself. If it is not truly "notable" from independent sources, it has no business using Wikipedia as a marketing tool. Collect (talk) 14:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Collect: "Advertise Here" is not a banner but a link. Wikipedia ask for donations and iHORRORdb sell some spaces. All these pages and images has costs. For Wikipedia as for iHORRORdb. But you're wrong for the movies. The Database don't sell movies and it isn't affiliate to Amazon. Do you need proofs of that? I can give you the proofs, if you need them. IMDb is commercial so as all the website listed on Wikipedia. (Pizzole (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]


The site's "$ Buy Now" buttons are plainly Amazon affiliate links. --McGeddon (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can furnish proof that the site has zero financial connection to Amazon whatsoever? I note that almost all sites which link to Amazon receive a percentage from Amazon, and I would a tad shocked to see the site turn such monies down. Your other problem is no one unconnected to the site seems to have written about the site which makes the "notability hurdle" insurmountable at this point. If you are in any way affiliated with the owner of the site, the site itself, or with GossipDay, now is the time to declare it. Collect (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Collect:@McGeddon: It's not an affiliate to Amazon. For sure. It's a free service for filmmaker and users. The first one love to see a Buy Now link and the second one have direct link to amazon if the want to buy the movies. Free streaming is legal. All movies are provided by Paramount Pictures. You can find them on Youtube for free: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzMVH2jEyEwXPBvyht8xQNw All streaming movies on the Internet Horror Movie Database are embedded through Youtube. And I'm not affiliated with anyone. I'm not a spammer. I love the horror genre and all good things about it. And the website is a good resource for the fanatics.(Pizzole (talk) 14:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  • Note to closer The editor, Pizzole,responsible for the article about this commercial site has made zero edits outside the site's owner BLP and the site article itself. Collect (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect:@McGeddon:You wrote that no one unconnected to the site seems to have written about the site. It's not true. The sources aren't connected to the website. You wrote than the site is an amazon affiliate. It's not true. You wrote that it sell movies. It's not true. This isn't spam. This is the truth. (Pizzole (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Looks like the site's Amazon affiliate links have changed since I last checked, unless I misread them earlier; they're now showing an empty "tag=". But the old links are still visible in Google's cached versions and plainly include a "tag=something" field, showing that the links were unambiguously part of the affiliate programme, until recently. (Not that this by itself is a reason to delete the article.) --McGeddon (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The website is not affiliate to Amazon. If you need proof you can contact Amazon and ask them. No affiliation between the two site. Nothing. (Pizzole (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
The site was running Amazon affiliate links until very recently, anybody can confirm this. How can you be sure that no other affiliate structure is in place when you claim to have no professional connection to ihorrordb.com? --McGeddon (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon affiliate use tag like this http://www.a-ma-z-on.com/?tag=your_Associates_ID. You can always contact owners via contact form if you need more info. The website it isn't commercial like IMDb (Amazon properties) or an ecommerce because it not sell movies. All pages are free for guest and users. Streaming is legal, sources are independent. There is nothing that is wrong with this page. Not for deletion. It can be updated but it's a genuine page.(Pizzole (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
For what it's worth, here is an archive copy of a page from October 6 whose "$ Buy Now" link plainly includes the affiliate tag "tag=i0814-20". The live page for the same film no longer contains that tag, and it looks as if the Internet Horror Movie Database has blanked all of their affiliate tags some time between October 6 and October 12. --McGeddon (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry @McGeddon: but you haven't any valid argument. Even if the website WAS an affiliate, who care?(Pizzole (talk) 11:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  • Note New source: http://www.klub99.it/2015/10/e-nato-linternet-horror-movie-database.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizzole (talk • contribs) 14:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Antony Coia, although I will note that his article needs some work with asserting notability itself. (But since that's not what's up at AfD at the moment, I'm not going to worry about that.) Right now there aren't any sources that are both independent and reliable, per the discussion above. The newest link isn't any better, as the site does not have any verifiable editorial oversight and looks to be a WP:SPS. I'm sorry, but this is just too soon for an entry. FWIW as a horror fan, I like the site and hope it does well enough to warrant an entry in the future, but right now it just doesn't pass guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tokyogirl79:Yes, you are right about the last source. It hasn't any verifiable editorial oversight. But it's the only. Look at this one: http://horrormovie.it/news/leggi_news.asp?id=2081. It's one of the oldest horror websites in the planet. And both Nonsologore, Horrorfest, Horrormovie and Gossipday have verifiable editorial info. (Pizzole (talk) 08:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
On Alexa, "horrormovie.it" ranks about 1,473,000. About 1% of its pageviews are from the English-speaking areas. Collect (talk) 13:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is Alexa an accurate measurement tool? No. Look at here: http://www.bloggingspell.com/alexa-traffic-ranking/ or the tons of page talk about alexa inaccuracy. (Pizzole (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
@Collect: Here you can check some diagrams about alexa inaccuracy: https://catn.com/2010/08/16/how-accurate-is-alexa/ Can you show me a link where Wikipedia talks about alexa as an important metric for the reliable sources? (Pizzole (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Noting the bloggish nature of your cavils, Alexa rankings well over 1 million tend strongly to indicate that very few people visit a given site. That only .88% of all the site's page views are from the US indicates that exceedingly few people in the US read the site (in fact, Alexa indicates the total page views are so low that meaningful statistics are not to be had.) When trying to say that a site with a rank of 40,000 has significant difference from a site with a rank of 39,000 - yes the margin of error is noticeable. (one reason why I find those who post up and down arrows on Wikipedia for sites which have a change of 5 in their position to be useless). When dealing with a site with a rank on 1.4 million or more - the stats will not support saying that Alexa is off by 400,000 in the ranking. So if you insist Alexa is off by more, your cites will not support that claim. What you might be able to claim is that the value of 1.473 million should have a possible error value of plus or minus 50,000 or so -- at best the site could be as high as a rank of 1.423 million. Better? Collect (talk) 14:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Collect: You can boost Alexa ranking with some tricks (e.g. http://www.improvealexaranking.com). So stop to talking about it. It's not accurate. Can you show me a link where Wikipedia talks about alexa as an important metric for the reliable sources? (Pizzole (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
I don't read Italian, but the last three news sources raised here are all short blog entries that appear to have been written mere hours before Pizzole has brought them up in the AfD. They seem like they're written in the same kind of way, two using the exact same screenshot. Are they definitely independent of Antony Coia, rather than the result of a press release or paid content made in response to this AfD? --McGeddon (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@McGeddon: I think that the screenshot is taken from the official facebook page (https://scontent-mxp1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/11214039_1498941230419703_1513634204707448988_n.jpg?oh=80ec9cd440770384865b957eee3af6ca&oe=56C807C2). If you look at it you can see that the logo of the website is not visible in the picture. If the owner payed for the content, why the screenshots has the website logo hidden? I think it's because all websites took the images from the official facebook page. I know italian and articles are not written in the same kind of way. The more professional seems to be the last one (IngenereCinema). (Pizzole (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  • this article is not notable and looks more like a marketing piece. Murrayturtle (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MichaelQSchmidt:@McGeddon:Please stop this account. He is doing disruptive editing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Murrayturtle— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizzole (talk • contribs) 15:05, 16 October 2015‎
The user has since been blocked as a sockpuppet, looks like they hit this AfD at random. --McGeddon (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was for vengeance because I reverted some of his disruptive editings. (Pizzole (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete article is written like an advertisement and lacks any reputable references.. All references on the page are merely listings or affiliate links. David Condrey log talk 00:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: References added to the article are all (except one) valid sources in Italian Wikipedia and not only it. Everyone can search for them in it.wikipedia.org (especially horrormovie.it, ingenerecinema...) If you know Italian language, you can understand the reliablity of the sources in the article. Plus, half or more of the negative reasons exposed in this discussion are only assumptions, mainly wrong and that you can verify by yourselves: this website doesn't sell movies, it's not affiliate with Amazon (everyone can see this because there isn't any tag code id) and sources are reliable and independent. The only one dependent source (from a website of the same owner) has been removed. Various sources and new text have been added since the discussion start.(Pizzole (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the allegedly new sources.  Sandstein  10:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Cirt:. You have to check it as "Internet Horror Movie Database" or "iHORRORdb". Your search is wrong. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL or Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (Pizzole (talk) 12:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Note: added new source. (Pizzole (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

@McGeddon: You are hostile. You have deleted your comment because it has no sense. The source is not a horror blog. You are wrong and yours are assumptions without sources. Mondospettacolo is a website about television and cinema. It's not anonymous. There is a staff, there are names. It's a website made by people that works in italian cinema. And in previous sources, if you look at staff, you can find important name as writers, journalists and people that works on RAI. It's not my fault if you don't know Italian. Look at here: http://www.mondospettacolo.com/our-crew/ (Pizzole (talk) 11:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
If you want it to be recorded, okay, my comment was "Your new source seems to be another anonymous horror-blog entry written just a few hours before you introduced it to the article." - the site actually explicitly describes itself as a blog in a odd legal footnote at the bottom of every page ("Questo blog non rappresenta una testata giornalistica"), and the article is credited to Direttore ("Editor"?), whose profile "about" page says nothing more about them, when I click through. --McGeddon (talk) 11:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@McGeddon:Direttore is Director. In the staff page I see that the Director is Alessandro Cunsolo. You see it? Ok, so stop with your assumptions. For the footer disclaimer is simply because in Italy there is a law against the press freedom. You can find that in a lot of Italian websites. It's a disclaimer very very common. Anyway, it's not an horror blog and it's not anonymous. You can see the staff page. About the fact that "is written just a few hours before you introduced it to the article", it's the same reason for which I reply you after a few minutes. ;)(Pizzole (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Note: Added new source. It's a magazine (newspaper), made by journalists. Staff Page in which you can read "ISCRITTO AL TRIBUNALE DI VELLETRI Autorizzazione n 2 del Tribunale di Velletri, 30 Gennaio 2007 (modifica e aggiornamento dicembre 2010) Registrazione al ROC 16238" (Pizzole (talk) 09:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Note new source from one of the most important and visited horror magazine in the world. It's a magazine (newspaper), a cultural institution and a book publisher made by journalists. You can check the staff page in which you can read: Testata giornalistica registrata presso il Tribunale di Milano, n. 253 del 4 aprile 2005. ISSN 1974-8221. (Pizzole (talk) 08:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

  • Keep, the AFD fails. WP:GNG/WP:WEB are respected. Since the article was afded a lot of sources and new text have been added. Sources are reliable and independent. There are sources from blogs, newspapers and websites. There are news, reviews and articles made by bloggers, professional writers and journalists. The article and the website are notable. Old redirect, merge and deletes are obsolete because new sources have been inserted and because many of these comments are only assumptions.(Pizzole (talk) 10:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    • Um -- using a magazine which apparently gives a press release from a new site != much of a source. Sorry -- we all know from your array of posts here, but so far the best you can hope for is a redirect, and more likely the likely commercial spam for a very new website will be deleted. Collect (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your "press release" is only an assumption. If you know Italian language you know that you are wrong. The last source is best known than magazine like Rue Morgue (magazine). Do you remember your assumptions about Alexa? Well, here are two newspapers that run better than magazines that have a page on Wikipedia. Please, talk about spam to professional journalists and writers.(Pizzole (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
And stop to leave comments as children do, You seem an hater. I added reliable and independent sources so if you want to talk against the article, please prove your comments. (Pizzole (talk) 12:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Deal with the issues - and I am far from a "hater" as I have known people who have appeared in "horror movies". And trying to say "but Wikipedia has articles about magazines you think are even less notable" is not a strong argument here at all. So please keep really misguided attacks out of this. Collect (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but "but Wikipedia has articles about magazines you think are even less notable" is your argument and your words. Not mine. And I'm not interested in your private life and who you know. I want you to prove what you are talking about if you claim for a delete. I'm a lawyer and I know what I am talking about. And you now are discrediting the work of journalists, professional writers and registered newspapers.(Pizzole (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete - per nom and Collect. Searches do not turn up enough in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources to meet notability criteria. Add to that the promotional tone of the article, and there is nothing to keep through a merge. Wouldn't be adverse to a redirect. Onel5969 TT me 14:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969:Wikipedia WP:GNG says: There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. and "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail so there are problems with your claim. There isn't any promotional tone in the article. Please take a look at the Internet Movie Database and compare them. Please explain what do you intend with "promotional tone". Thanks (Pizzole (talk) 15:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Comment - my rationale is clearly stated above. Your continued confrontations with those who disagree with you are wearing thin. It's time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Onel5969 TT me 15:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969:Sorry but if Wikipedia want reliable sources for the article, even the debat need reliable sources from who disagree and why. And I can't see them because there is nothing except assumptions. I proved the notability of the website. Journalists proved that. It's not what do you like or not. There is a clear guideline. So, please tell me what is wrong in the article with the guideline WP:GNG. (Pizzole (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
@Onel5969:And for me it's not important if the article will be deleted, merged, redirected or approved. What I want are answers. I want to know the exact part of text of the Notability guideline in which there are problems with the articles and the sources.(Pizzole (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Comment - You've been given answers. You simply don't want to see them. With that I'm done with this senseless conversation. Again, drop the stick. Onel5969 TT me 16:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969:This is Wikipedia, not me: WP:GNGThere is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. So, your "do not turn up enough in-depth coverage" is just an assumption. And you can prove nothing because Wikipedia guideline is clear. drop the stick with me. (Pizzole (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
What's the problem? It's a draft, not a published or duplicate page. Pizzole (talk) 23:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer The AfD Fails. WP:GNG/WP:WEB not. WP:GNG says: Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language and There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. WP:WEB says: "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even web content that editors personally believe is "important" or "famous" is only accepted as notable if it can be shown to have attracted notice. and most important at all, as reported by wikipedian Dimadick High-traffic websites are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller websites can also be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger websites.. This debat is ambiguous and not clear. The are no reason for a deletion (the article is well sourced) and no reason for a redirect to the owner of the website. He is a musician... not a website. (Pizzole (talk) 09:12, 25 October 2015 (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/Internet_Horror_Movie_Database&oldid=1137933193"