Template:FilmAffinity – Endorse. There's clear agreement that the XfD close correctly judged that the delete arguments were in line with policy, while the keep arguments were more along the lines of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL. There's also some feeling (but no real consensus) that the closer should review WP:SPAregarding our policy for how to correctly evaluate comments from those users. – -- RoySmith(talk)23:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: since WP:SPA is an essay, it's inappropriate to assert that it is a source of policy. Still, some people felt that reviewing the essay would be useful. -- RoySmith(talk)23:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The template FilmAffinity was recently deleted without clear consensus since there were 4 deletes and 3 keeps. Moreover, the Wikipedia guidelines state that consensus depends on the quality of the arguments, not the quantity, and the ones that voted "delete" don't offer objective information or anything really valuable, even one user, according to Wikipedia guidelines, is showcasing incivility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.61.46.126 (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The deletion result seems within discretion to me but the claim in the closing rationale "SPAs are as always ignored" is an appallingly bad characterisation of WP:SPA which says "... a user who edits appropriately and makes good points that align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines should have their comment given full weight ...". SPA contributions are not ignored but are examined on their merits. Thincat (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- The discussion boiled down to the delete side raising legitimate concerns about accuracy and reliability, and the keep side saying WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT. That, and the fact that several of the keep !voters were very obviously sock- or meatpuppets, makes this a clearly correct close. ReykYO!11:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've no opinion (or understanding) of the underlying dispute. But yes, given that this was the first contribution of at least two of those arguing to keep this, I'd say actual consensus was clear. endorse deletion. Hobit (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As I stated in my nomination, the external link goes against MOS:FILM#External links, specifically, "Some external links may benefit readers in a way that the Wikipedia article cannot accommodate." In the world of movies, there are going to be a great deal of movie-related websites that clamor for traffic. A website can only qualify here as an external link if an ideal Wikipedia article cannot have that information. In the case of film articles, this is generally content that an encyclopedic article cannot show, like a list of more film reviews than can be sampled, or more detailed box office data that is not likely to be captured in prose. IMDb itself lists many more cast and crew members than Wikipedia could. FilmAffinity does not add anything beyond what a Wikipedia article on a film can have. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)14:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - if I had been the one to close this TFD it would have had the same result (minus the SPA comment). As mentioned above, the delete votes cited precedent and policy reasons while the keep votes barely managed more than "it's useful". Primefac (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the argument for deletion is that the links are either not useful or not as useful as other film websites, which is perfectly valid. Most of the Keep comments just asserted that they liked the site, which doesn't mean anything, and discussion about how great it is for Spanish speakers aren't that useful on a site that is aimed at English speakers. Hut 8.522:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
