The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 08:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
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}} . |
Long parts of comments from this AFD discussion have been refactored to its talk page. This is not an assertion that the comments are less valuable than others, merely that these long comments are a little *too* long and are making for too much reading. I would recommend that users involved in this discussion read through the talk page too. Stifle 21:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply
NN, advertisement. Additionally, was tagged with a {{ prod}} but was removed by the author, as per this conversation from the article's talk page:
1. I submitted a request to move the page from "Everyonesacritic.net" to "Everyone's a Critc" taking the URL out of the title.
2. I reworded the content so it is a description of the community and not an advertisement for the website.
3. Other similar movie websites have entries in Wikipedia that are not submitted for deletion.
If the person who submitted this entry for deletion, continues to do so, I respectfully request that specific reasons are stated in this discussion, so I may know how to continue to change the content to fall within Wikipedia's guidelines.
- Don't take this personally, but this article is not encyclopaedic. What you can do to prevent this from being deleted is to edit the article in a way that shows what the site is, who founded it, some history, etc. Example: sentences like "Everyone's a Critic, find yours..." sounds actually as a slogan rather than something you can find on an encyclopaedia, or "Dan, being the receptive webmaster that he is, has been applying many of these new features in a very timely manner." is a direct compliment (thus, completely subjecive)to someone that is not even notable. Any questions?
- Ah: there's an alternative way to deal with deletion process and it's AfD. In that process, users vote on the deletion or keeping of the article. Would you prefer that instead of this more "aggresive" Proposed Deletion? -- Neigel von Teighen 14:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. One quick thing. What does "NN" mean? -- Dave Seidner 10:05, 17 February 2006 (EST)
- NN = Non notable. In simple words, only few people knows this and it is not worth enough to be in the encyclopaedia (unless you can verify and demonstrate that it is notable). -- Neigel von Teighen 15:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Also recommend that the requested move by the author be terminated pending the outcome of this decision み使い Mitsukai 19:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC) reply
It appears "TC Candler" above has precisely one edit, the one above. He is likely a double for the author, in which case I upgrade to Strong Delete.
Cdcon 22:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
*Delete NN
Maustrauser 00:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
TendernessTour (aka Richard Propes)
*Comment. Frankly, when I look at the page, I still see what looks like not only POV, but outright advertising. "Words of Hope" as a section header? That's ad copy, not a section header. Links to awards vice simple mentions within the article? That's leading someone to go look and increase the validation of the article vice letting it speak for itself. I initially AFD'd it, because as the {{
prod}} was removed makes it somewhat controversial and highly suggests that it needs to go to an AFD for further validation; I didn't have a vote on it one way or another. But based on what I see now, if I had to vote, I would vote Speedy delete based on what I consider to be
WP:VSCA. Furthermore, by the increasing appearance of EaC members to come here and "protect their turf" is usually indicative of and done by minor sites that do not meet the notability requirements of WP. Lastly, by your nitpicking every bit of the rules, you are not ensuring that the article will survive; however, you are finding the flaws in the rules that will likely be tightened up after this AFD regardless of the outcome. For that we should thank you, but that does not make your site any more notable.--
み使い
Mitsukai 01:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)See below for my revision.--
み使い
Mitsukai 15:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
*Comment I completely object to Stifle's attempt to stifle me. Stifle claims the reason he moved the meat and bones of this AfD over to the talk page is because it's too long and therefore too much to read (Waaaaaaaahhhhh!!!). Yet, everything he's moved has been the author's comments (except one response to one of the author's comments). Many of the author's comments Stifle moved are a lot shorter than other people's comments he left on the AfD page. So why move the author's short comments and keep other's longer comments and claim it's because the AfD is too long? Then, after all that time Stifle took figuring out what to move over to the talk page be cause it's too much to read all those words; it's blatantly obvious Stifle didn't even read any of it, he just moved it. Why? Because he votes to Delete with the Alexa ranking as his reason when the author already pointed out that according to Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, Alexa rankings are not used to determine notability. Folks here keep telling me to not take this personally, or no offense, but... and I'll tell you that I haven't been taking this personally. I do understand the need to edit and delete within Wikipedia. But, over time I'm beginning to take it a bit personally. When rules and guidelines are blatantly ignored, when Wikipedians justify the ignoring of the guidelines by saying "Well, they're going to be changed soon anyway." then how is a newbie supposed to take all of this? I'm trying not to take it personally, but some of you are making it difficult. --
Dave 12:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 08:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
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}} . |
Long parts of comments from this AFD discussion have been refactored to its talk page. This is not an assertion that the comments are less valuable than others, merely that these long comments are a little *too* long and are making for too much reading. I would recommend that users involved in this discussion read through the talk page too. Stifle 21:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply
NN, advertisement. Additionally, was tagged with a {{ prod}} but was removed by the author, as per this conversation from the article's talk page:
1. I submitted a request to move the page from "Everyonesacritic.net" to "Everyone's a Critc" taking the URL out of the title.
2. I reworded the content so it is a description of the community and not an advertisement for the website.
3. Other similar movie websites have entries in Wikipedia that are not submitted for deletion.
If the person who submitted this entry for deletion, continues to do so, I respectfully request that specific reasons are stated in this discussion, so I may know how to continue to change the content to fall within Wikipedia's guidelines.
- Don't take this personally, but this article is not encyclopaedic. What you can do to prevent this from being deleted is to edit the article in a way that shows what the site is, who founded it, some history, etc. Example: sentences like "Everyone's a Critic, find yours..." sounds actually as a slogan rather than something you can find on an encyclopaedia, or "Dan, being the receptive webmaster that he is, has been applying many of these new features in a very timely manner." is a direct compliment (thus, completely subjecive)to someone that is not even notable. Any questions?
- Ah: there's an alternative way to deal with deletion process and it's AfD. In that process, users vote on the deletion or keeping of the article. Would you prefer that instead of this more "aggresive" Proposed Deletion? -- Neigel von Teighen 14:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. One quick thing. What does "NN" mean? -- Dave Seidner 10:05, 17 February 2006 (EST)
- NN = Non notable. In simple words, only few people knows this and it is not worth enough to be in the encyclopaedia (unless you can verify and demonstrate that it is notable). -- Neigel von Teighen 15:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Also recommend that the requested move by the author be terminated pending the outcome of this decision み使い Mitsukai 19:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC) reply
It appears "TC Candler" above has precisely one edit, the one above. He is likely a double for the author, in which case I upgrade to Strong Delete.
Cdcon 22:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
*Delete NN
Maustrauser 00:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
TendernessTour (aka Richard Propes)
*Comment. Frankly, when I look at the page, I still see what looks like not only POV, but outright advertising. "Words of Hope" as a section header? That's ad copy, not a section header. Links to awards vice simple mentions within the article? That's leading someone to go look and increase the validation of the article vice letting it speak for itself. I initially AFD'd it, because as the {{
prod}} was removed makes it somewhat controversial and highly suggests that it needs to go to an AFD for further validation; I didn't have a vote on it one way or another. But based on what I see now, if I had to vote, I would vote Speedy delete based on what I consider to be
WP:VSCA. Furthermore, by the increasing appearance of EaC members to come here and "protect their turf" is usually indicative of and done by minor sites that do not meet the notability requirements of WP. Lastly, by your nitpicking every bit of the rules, you are not ensuring that the article will survive; however, you are finding the flaws in the rules that will likely be tightened up after this AFD regardless of the outcome. For that we should thank you, but that does not make your site any more notable.--
み使い
Mitsukai 01:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)See below for my revision.--
み使い
Mitsukai 15:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
*Comment I completely object to Stifle's attempt to stifle me. Stifle claims the reason he moved the meat and bones of this AfD over to the talk page is because it's too long and therefore too much to read (Waaaaaaaahhhhh!!!). Yet, everything he's moved has been the author's comments (except one response to one of the author's comments). Many of the author's comments Stifle moved are a lot shorter than other people's comments he left on the AfD page. So why move the author's short comments and keep other's longer comments and claim it's because the AfD is too long? Then, after all that time Stifle took figuring out what to move over to the talk page be cause it's too much to read all those words; it's blatantly obvious Stifle didn't even read any of it, he just moved it. Why? Because he votes to Delete with the Alexa ranking as his reason when the author already pointed out that according to Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, Alexa rankings are not used to determine notability. Folks here keep telling me to not take this personally, or no offense, but... and I'll tell you that I haven't been taking this personally. I do understand the need to edit and delete within Wikipedia. But, over time I'm beginning to take it a bit personally. When rules and guidelines are blatantly ignored, when Wikipedians justify the ignoring of the guidelines by saying "Well, they're going to be changed soon anyway." then how is a newbie supposed to take all of this? I'm trying not to take it personally, but some of you are making it difficult. --
Dave 12:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
reply