Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MovieCodec Forums

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]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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]

Delete. Collectonian's arguments are compelling. While the article clears the WP:GNG hurdle on the surface by citing three sources, the articles are about the thread and not the forum. The forum itself isn't notable outside of the thread. Whether you argue that it's outright non-notable or is only notable for one event, it falls short of the depth of coverage expected for an article. Since the "I am lonely" thread does not (and probably should not) have an article, merging is not an option. —C.Fred (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NN and the "I am lonely..." is a single event at best. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 23:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant third-party coverage. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it should be noted in case of a lot of new members suddenly appearing that in the MvC forum[4], the creators of the article have now asked their forum members to come do meatpuppeting at this AfD and "try and fight the battle for us" to "save" the article. (I've print screened the thread)-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:15, 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]

delete Non notable website, no evidence that it passes the minimum criteria for inclusion as spelled out at WP:N and WP:WEB. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay, for another argument. You want sources where it mentions moviecodec correct? Well here is the list off one of the referances http://www.alexa.com/site/linksin;0/moviecodec.com. 100 sources where it is mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChibiDiscoDhaos (talk • contribs) 01:29, 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]

Delete per chibidisco.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable website. Ridernyc (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Collectonian's well put reasoning. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:WEB. The "I am lonely thread" is probably notable, but that doesn't make the site notable. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:11, 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]

Delete per WP:WEB Zzzzz (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically the "i am lonely will anyone speak to me" thread, it has 4 notable mentions in magazines and newspapers, so would that be applicable for a wiki page? Or the The Lounge alone, since that is the home of the thread and a couple others such as the "Goku vs. Superman" thread that served as a popular place for debating the popular debate. Please tell me.Omegakingboo (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N 龗 (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, I am a frequent poster there (as well as a moderator for some sections), but after seeing your guys' reasoning I don't think we need a page yet. I do think it's stupid you guys are banning some people from Wikipedia because you think they are the same person. Me and some of the other mods have done IP checks on the suspected "puppets" and found neither were from the same address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.229.172 (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that the thread should be deleted. My only regret is that none of this was brought up in page discussion so that it could have been fixed before a problem arose and people wasted time on a futile venture. (User:Derdev789 (talk) 05:51, 16 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.