Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spill.Com

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. Cirt (talk) 04:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spill.Com

[edit]
Spill.Com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable website. No reliable sources covering site. Fails WP:WEB. Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: See WP:BURDEN and WP:GHITS, but since you asked: #1 valid ref; #2 and #5 valid ref, but seems more about parent company; #3 and #4 seems to be be a restatement of a PR piece so appears to fall into the WP:WEB#Criteria 1b) exception of "trivial coverage"; #6 does not appear to reference Spill.com. So that leaves one valid ref and two sort-of refs, which doesn't meet WP:WEB#Criteria 1). The other News links are reprints of PR from Spill.com. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it more, it seems to be a popular site but not have enough reliable coverage. Until more reliable sources cover the site, I'm inclined to agree that it should be deleted. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would this CNN coverage citing a Spill.com article [7] The Austin Film Critic Association [8] and references from /film.com including this one [9] as reliable coverage? It should also be noted that while the previous 2 & 5 (from the Motley Fool) focus upon the stock of the previous parent company MIVA, the articles themselves are about the stock of that company based upon the content and popularity of the site in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.103.212 (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The X-Men Origins: Wolverine references are about the leak itself, not about Spill.com so I do not think that would be enough to establish Spill.com's notability: CNN was just in passing as a background screen shot, /film just reports somebody from Spill.com said it was an old version so it not really about Spill.com. Being a member of the Austin Film Critics Association does not make one's website notable. The Motley Fool content is more about MIVA, not Spill.com. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly disagree. It is nonsensical to delete the page "untill it cites more reliable sources" as more reliable sources cannot be added to the page if it has been deleted. The best thing to do is to simply leave the website up for the time being and if it doesn't have more reible sources and citation by an alloted time, then it should be deleted. 92.251.175.206 (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are not proposing deleting the page because it doesn't cite enough reliable sources, we are proposing deleting it because its subject (Spill.com) has not received enough coverage in reliable sources to warrant an article. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spill.com is a suitably large movie review site with full time reviewers working for it. As such it is a legitamate website and is worthy of a short entry. Several movie pages have their grades in the Reception sections and thus has recieved enough coverage. It was also featured on network news over the Wolverine/Fox piracy debate in may --Davidbray2 (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2009 (GBT) — Davidbray2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • It's notable enough for many people to want a wikipedia page about it. It's a short entry, and people will use it because so many people actually use that site (spill.com)and tell their friends about it. And it did appear CNN, which is one of the biggest news networks. I'd say that's notable enough for a short wiki page. --EspioChaos (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC). — EspioChaos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; articles should be judged on their own merits, and not be contingent on the existence of other articles. If you feel that the ones you have listed (JoBlo, Cinema Blend, etc) are unworthy of having articles, you may put them up for deletion as well. See the steps at WP:AFD. GlassCobra 20:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, said article also states that saying automatically dismissing the "other stuff exists" argument isn't a valid response. Spill is a well-known website, as are sites similar to it that have pages. I don't understand the debate here. Especially since much of it was started by Flesheater, who is a well-known spammer on Spill, causing grief and insulting various members of the site because he thinks its fun. PittJames (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone identifying as Flesheater has indeed posted on the talk page, though his comments are not that egregious, and do not appear to intend to start any discussion, as you state. Furthermore, whatever comments were made on the talk page do not affect the debate here at all. GlassCobra 02:11, 15 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spill.Com&oldid=1148397622"