Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XCritic

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 No consensus. Bduke (talk) 11:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XCritic

[edit]
XCritic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Disputed speedy deletion (see Talk:XCritic for a discussion). This article was created by the subject. It has sources but fails to assert notability. Talk page discussion from author admits that the website is just starting out. Article reads like an advert and there's a clear CoI in it being authored by the subject. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 12:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fails to assert why this is notable. Overly fine level of detail such as what the sites first review was (IMO unencylopedic). If most of the unencylopedic information was removed, there would not be much of an article left. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 12:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revised based on your feedback, eliminated first review striped down to encyclopedic infomationGkleinman (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The references you have added are a.) not reliable sources or b.) do not assert the significance of this site. You references to Janes guide appear to be one of the only statements that assert the signficance of this site, which however appears to be related to the site in itself making it unrelaible. I still believe this needs to be deleted. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 14:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Author is a newbie, so first iteration may have come off more like and ad than an article. The desire is there to make this article compliant with wiki guidelines. Rather than delete the article I'm asking for some help on bringing it into spec. I'm also committed to working on the article further as well as ensuring other authors who have information or sources related to the article contribute so that it IS more balanced. So rather than delete it, can you please have some patience with me as I work this article? Thanks Gkleinman (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Author is not a newbie when his first edit was back in 2005 (admittedly with a huge gap until the start of the month). --Blowdart | talk 12:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't recall when I registered but I am still learning. Rather than delete, please work with me to get an entry for this notable site so it is compliant Gkleinman (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
please re-evaluate based on revisionGkleinman (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revised, please re-evaluateGkleinman (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
does a site which reviews adult material automatically get deleted? we're working to help advise people on adult entertainment and want to connect that in a scholarly way to wikipedia. Again I ask for assistance here.Gkleinman (talk) 12:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You keep being pointed to WP:NOTE and keep using excuses why you should stay rather than attempt to address the issue of notability. Instead you've waved WP:BITE and now you're wondering if it is because your site is about porn. Again, no. Your site is new and you have made no attempt to prove notability. So, again, please read WP:NOTE and address those issues rather than attempting to duck and dive and claim persecution. --Blowdart | talk 13:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry i thought I had addressed notability with 3 independent sources - Investor's Business Daily, AVN and XBIZ. I will work to add more, but I was referring to the note that was added re: list of deletions I don't mean to wave WP:BITE at everything, I am really working here to bring things to spec. But I am asking for some patience and some help. Gkleinman (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of those make for notability, they're reprinted PR puff pieces or links to the fact you ran a competition. The only thing that's even close is the Investor's Business Daily and that doesn't reference the web site other than pointing out the person they quoted was employed by you. --Blowdart | talk 13:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK I revised it with the sources more appropriately placed. They may seem like puff pieces, but in the adult industry AVN and XBiz are considered definitive sources.Gkleinman (talk) 13:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment. The pornographic nature of the site is not an issue. Insufficient objective evidence of notability is. Normally, notability is proven by continued interest over time by reliable sources. Failing that, recognition by RS of durable achievement or importance will do. Editor conflict of interest here hurts as well since a neutral point of view is needed and we don't have enough to do a NPOV rewrite. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Reads as an advertisement, also fails WP:WEB and WP:NOTE per above. Wisdom89 (talk) 13:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.The sources are just barely adequate, and more can probably be found. "Continued notability over time" is not the criterion. Notability is the criterion. A new site can be notable, if it attracts enough attention. "Durable" achievement is not the standard. Achievement is the standard, and we go not by what we think achievement, but by whether there are sources. (The exception, of course, is for transient news events under NOT NES, but this does not apply to other sorts of articles.) COI is not reason for deletion, just for looking carefully. "We don't have time to a NPOV rewrite" is the wrong approach entirely--we always prefer to improve articles, rather than delete them. It has taken years to get a NPOV approach on many articles. If it is desired to change the fundamental nature of WP:N, the Village Pump is the place. DGG (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is in my opinion abusive to nominate articles initially lacking sources for notability immediately after they have been written, rather than simply ask for additional sources. Newbie or not. All editors deserve time to develop an article. DGG (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use disruptive words like "abusive" about established editors when they are acting in good faith. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 16:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - the sources are pretty marginal; they're either basically press releases or they are passing mentions of the site. If the site were to go down tomorrow, these sources would not be enough to justify the notability of a continued article. That said, it's a very new site, and if it keeps going at this rate, the sources will become enough soon, and we'd just have to recreate the article in a few months. But that's somewhat crystal ball gazing (prediction is very difficult, especially about the future) so I won't kick and scream too much if the decision is to delete for now. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Added a third party review of the content "Jane's Guide" this should satisfy the notability issue "Jane has been quoted as an "expert in the field" in articles by the following publications: Wired.com, The New York Times, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Orange County Weekly, The Boston Globe, U.S. News and World Report, The SF Gate, AVN Online, MSNBC, WNYC (National Public Radio affiliate) and many others." notability of Jane's Guide as Definitive source in field.Gkleinman (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Err yea except the janes review is of the site you spun off from, not XCritic itself, so to my eyes it's not applicable. --Blowdart | talk 13:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which are one in the same. Also Jane's is going to do an updated review, but that takes time. Again more time here will resolve about 90% of the issues. Gkleinman (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment if they were one and the same then you don't need two seperate articles, xcritic could be merged into DVDTalk. Time is not an issue, you're free to recreate with better citations and proof of notability should the delete happen. --Blowdart | talk 18:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment actually you make an excellent case here for why the article needs to exist. The spin off is NOT one in the same with DVD Talk it's actually now owned by a different company and that fact is important to be out there (the wiki is the only place where that story is spelled out). Also the updated Jane's Guide review of XCritic is forthcoming. So a delete is unnecessary. Gkleinman (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
commentSo make up your mind; either site is the same as you said above and thus the Jane's review is applicable, or it's different as you have just said and the Jane's review is not. Forthcoming counts for nothing BTW. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball --Blowdart | talk 20:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I think you need to recuse yourself from this Blowdart it's clear you have an issue with me as an editor Noticeboard#Gkleinman_edits, ive tried to call a WP:Truce but you skoffed at it User talk:Blowdart. It's important to note that the ENTIRE deletion path was initiated by you. If you continue to make this personal I'm going to call for WP:MediationGkleinman (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the "deletion path" was initiated by me, not by Blowdart, and your edits were brought into the spotlight by you yourself, when you started complaining to the admin noticeboard that you weren't be left to get on with your self-aggrandizement. The "truce" you've tried to call is actually that this AfD and being called about your self-promotion on your self-penned biographic article should stop (nothing about what you would do in return; just that you should be allowed to get on with it). I for one support the idea of mediation: it's a useful step on an inevitable path that will see us parting company. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 22:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention the original db-spam tag which caused the first attempt at the page to be deleted wasn't mine either; I had used db-web. I also find it interesting that for someone who claims to be new you're very well versed in the wikipedia mediation and complaints procedures. --Blowdart | talk 22:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well given dealing with someone who is being unreasonable I've had to learn quite quickly about the process here. Gkleinman (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify who is being unreasonable in your eyes. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 23:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well obviously i feel the AfD unreasonable, I raised the issue about Blowdart on the admin page as if you look at his talk page he does get a number of complaints about his speedy delete tages. I'm more than happy to have the discourse here especially CONSTRUCTIVE comments that I've actually taken and updated the piece with. I think the core issue to me is that looking at WP i see pages that have far less creditable sources and yet it seems there's little that will sway some of the editors here. If you break down the issues, I feel we've met WP:NOT by siting key sources from the adult industry plus a quote from Investors Business daily. The issue of WP:COI is inherent to the fact that I as editor of XCritic created the page. But again this page is far from the only page on WP that has this issue, and its one which will be resolved as others contribute to the page.

Ultimately I think I've put forth an extremely solid case for Keep and spent the time here as a newbie to learn how things work and what is needed. If you compare the first iteration of the page with what's there now you'll see a lot of work has been done to make it conform to WP standards.Gkleinman (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


One thing i think would be helpful is to have more time. The entry was JUST created. The possible issue with WP:COI will be resolved, but it's not something that can be done under the gun. I propose that there be a stay of execution here for 1 month and then if it doesnt pass muster revisit the deletion argument. Sound fair?Gkleinman (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Delete. The reliable sources currently in the article aren't strong enough to convince me it should be kept. I'd switch my vote to Keep if the article could be rewritten before the end of this debate so there is no remaining content referenced to a non-reliable source. WP:COI is not by itself a reason for deletion, but it's a reason to be very cautious in the AfD. I can imagine the survival of a very factual, very small article, but I don't imagine the creator of the article agreeing to that. EdJohnston (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Updated my vote to a full Delete after looking more carefully at the sources. There is no information in the current article that I can see as derived from a reliable source.
  • A guy from XCritic was quoted in Investors Business Daily, but only to ask him a question about HDTV formats in the adult entertainment business. In other words, the content of that interview is not a source of any usable information about XCritic itself.
  • Even if we stretch our definitions to include Jane's Guide as a reliable source, we find
(a) Jane's offers a review of DVD Talk, not XCritic, the subject of this article.
(b) Jane's review has only nine sentences, of which none seem to be relied on for any of the text of the current article.
(c) Jane's review can't be construed as high praise: There are good and bad reviews on the site, so they don't appear to just be running ads. That doesn't set the bar very high.
  • AVN's commentary on XCritic offers such hard-hitting language as the following: "We're excited to have two of the hottest up and coming new contract stars contributing to XCritic.com," said XCritic editor Chris Thorne. "We can't wait to see what's next." What's next could be a Wikipedia article, if there were any sources we could trust that did any serious evaluations. EdJohnston (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see X-Critic being the subject of only one independent article. Everything else was either a press release or the mention of the website is ancillary. I feel it flunks WP:WEB, and there's the issue of WP:COI in considering the arguments for notability. Vinh1313 (talk) 05:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well referenced enough to pass significant coverage, albeit barely. The three year span of coverage in the references invalidates flash in the pan claim, which shouldn't have been applicable in the first place.Horrorshowj (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, considering XCritic started in October 2007, I don't think there actually was a 3-year span of coverage. Coverage about DVDTalk is only relevant towards considering DVDTalk's notability, not XCritic. Vinh1313 (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah but Xcritic is effectively a spin off from DVD Talk, and as part of DVD Talk as an individual section it was/is very notableGkleinman (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Xcritics's notability must stand on its own in order to have an article on wikipedia. It should not derive its notability from DVDTalk's notability. You are always free to include information about XCritic in the DVDTalk article.Vinh1313 (talk) 03:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can't merge with DVD Talk as the site is specifically now NOT associated with DVD Talk anymore.Gkleinman (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So why do you keep insisting that a review that's now over 4 years old, referring to DVD Talk (and doesn't even mark it as notable) is applicable to your new site? --Blowdart | talk 17:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Because this site is a spin off from the other one and the review goes directly to the content which is spun off. Gkleinman (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability is not inherited just because its a daughter organization/company of another site. As mentioned, it must stand on its OWN for an article to be written. It cannot feed off the notability of something else. Wisdom89 (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that AVN and XBiz, the two leading adult trade publications have covered XCritic should be more than enough to satisfy notable. Additionally the site has been referenced in a few adult film credits including a major release [1] but how do you cite a film reference? Again I think we've satisfied notability and will continue to add citations as they appear. I know WP isn't a crystal ball but I feel we've shown enough for a recently launched site to satisfy notability. Gkleinman (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2008 (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/XCritic&oldid=1138715805"