Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everyonesacritic.net

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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 08:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyonesacritic.net

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]

  • Delete Traffic Rank for everyonesacritic.net: 915,697 --Ruby 19:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; this site does not appear to meet the criteria at WP:WEB.--Isotope23 20:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; I am the author. I have once again altered the content to be from a neutral perspective. The entry does not promote the site, it just states facts. Regarding the NN claim, I refer you to the following press about the site: Yahoo New and Notable March 8, 2003. Seven Wonders Entertainment Site of the Week April 10, 2003 and Sydney Morning Herald - IT News February 21, 2004. Also this site has about 1500 users and the google search query "rate movies" brings everyonesacritic.net back as the number 2 listing. Similar Wikipedia entries that are not deleted: MovieLens MovieMistakes The Diabolical Dominion Four Word Film Review and others (just look at the "Movie websites" category). Dave Seidner 3:33, 17 February 2006 (EST)
    • No offense, but just because we haven't caught them yet doesn't mean that they've survived an AFD. We may have to look into those as well, and if they meet the same nn criteria as yours might (note I say might, as this AFD is not complete yet), they may be nominated for AFD as well.--み使い Mitsukai 20:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; Everyone's a Critic is a relevant and important film discussion website that deserves mention along with the Internet Movie Database. It may currently lack the enormous membership of the imdb, but it is a far more literate and inclusive site that is a central gathering for serious cineastes as well as casual moviegoers. I think this important site deserves inclusion in an encyclopedia strictly because of the lack of similar entries. People will find it relevant, interesting & of more interest than generic and impersonal sites like imdb or rotten tomatoes. TC Candler
  • Delete. Close call, though. I looked at the other movie wiki sites mentioned above, and the one thing they have in common is that they contain much fewer POV phrases than everyonesacritic. Nonviolation of NN is less important to this article than nonviolation of POV, so focus on making the article more neutral.Cdcon 21:56, 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]

  • Due to the persistent (and apparently good-faith) edits made to this article by its author, I switch my Strong Delete vote to a Neutral. See my talk page for details. Cdcon 22:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not-for-profit and harmless enough. The article is a bit NN, so I would support making the article NPOV if it's to be kept. --UrbaneLegend 22:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to Cdcon's above accusation... I state that I am absolutely not a double. I am an accredited critic in London, England. I write for and am editor of my own film magazine called 'Coming Soon'. The publication has a circulation of about 100,000. I've run my own website for 6 years now and have a respectable daily readership. I am not a double. I am a member of EaC and believe that it is an important cinematic tool and a great place for aspiring cineastes to gather. - TC Candler
  • I'll take you at your word for that. From a quick google search I can see that you have some notability in some movie critic circles. However, keep in mind that it looks very suspicious when your first edit is on an AfD page. It usually takes a while for a new user to get to the AfD page, so I can assume you were led here by someone who wanted your specific point of view. Cdcon 22:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete NN Maustrauser 00:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have changed my vote. Dave has made a good faith attempt to change the article dramatically and has demonstrated notability. If everyone when criticized behaved like Dave in putting up constructive arguments whilst remaining cool and polite, Wikipedia would be a better place. Well argued Dave. Maustrauser 11:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Geez, talk about a persistant author. I don't think it holds much value, but I'll change my vote. ----Alphachimp 00:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Alphachimp 00:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • !!!!KEEP!!!! Everyone's A Critic is a relevant and innovative web-based community that fosters the development of its writers' critical thought processes, writing skills, communication skills and knowledge of everything related to the history and development of cinema. The discussion regarding its lacking of notability disregards both the documented three cases media coverage (meeting the requirement quoted by Wikipedia of "multiple" media representations. In fact, its notability is clearly greater than that cited for other websites in the same category such as "Four Word Film Reviews," a cite which lists only one such example in a "nomination" for a "Webby" Award. Thus, I believe that Everyone's A Critic falls clearly within the realm of notability required for inclusion. I do understand and appreciate the discussions being presented for deletion, however, I believe the discussions point more towards the need, which is being addressed, to edit the article in a way that educates rather than promotes. "Everyones a Critic" has gone considerably above and beyond the typical film website by: 1) Providing an active forum for participating writers to share their voices, become better writers and receive feedback on their opinions, writings and critical thoughts, 2) Empowering participating individuals to expand and explore their writings by taking the lessons learned on EAC and applying them as writers (Several of the active participants are either freelance or active film critics after first finding their voice on EAC), 3) Offering a benefit to the community by working in partnership with Indianapolis based 501c3 non-profit organization Tenderness Tour, Inc. (Yes, I am its Executive Director) in doing a year-long fund-raiser for Prevent Child Abuse America and National Coalition Against Domestic Violence AND raised hundreds of dollars through sponsorships of every review written in 2005, and 4) Creating a worldwide network of amateur and professional film critics who work, write, discuss and educate on all subjects related to film. Clearly, I believe very clearly, "Everyone's a Critic" is not only appropriate for inclusion but a fine addition to Wikipedia.

TendernessTour (aka Richard Propes)


  • KEEP: Part of what makes Wikipedia notable is community input over content. The same can be said for Everyone's a Critic. The community has been submitting and building its database as well as initiating content and function changes since inception. To deny that noteworthy trait is to deny the same for Wikipedia. EAC is also noteworthy for collecting an international community who continue to visit, some daily, for multiples of years. It is unique from other film sites in that the personal recommendations formula actually achieves its goal. I have been effectively matched with both professional and amateur critics whose recommendations have surprised and pleased for three years. I continue to receive obscure international and made-for-cable titles suited especially for me. These are titles that would not have been brought to my attention without this formula. The achievement of this goal will continue to foster the growth of this site. I expect Everyone’s a Critic to become to film sites what eBay became to auction sites. Imagine yourselves being the people responsible for deleting Auctionweb in 1995 (a.k.a. eBay in 1997)? All the great ones started just like this! --Nycsmile


*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]

  • Response to Dave: You stated under #2 that I refer to "NN" as the reason for deletion. If you go back and look at everything I've written on here, I cited WP:WEB as my reason for deletion. I never stated NN. I'm not trying to WP:BITE, but if you are going to refute my reasoning at least refute what I actually said. Now per your contentions of meeting WP:WEB, in my opinion the award you've cited (Seven Wonders Entertainment Site Award) doesn't qualify as notable and as Karmafist has stated below, the news articles are just blurbs. WP:WEB is just a guideline, not a rule, which is why Karmafist is voting to keep despite WP:WEB. He and I have a different opinion about this though. Again, it is nothing personal against you or your website.--Isotope23 14:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Isotope: Really, isn't that just semantics? Is there really a difference between "NN" and WP:WEB? Click on WP:WEB and it talks about Notability guidelines for websites. I have yet to see a link to a Wikipedia page for "NN". I was told "NN" means "Not Notable". So, what's the difference? And I've been accused of nitpicking.--Dave 12:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply No it's not just semantics, but since I'm not changing my mind and you are going to continue to fight to keep a reference to your site on Wikipedia, this is pretty much a wasted conversation, so let's just leave it at that.--Isotope23 14:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In spite of all above, I'm afraid this article is still basically promotion for a NN site. Agree with Ruby and Isotope 23. AndyJones 11:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Articles like this one are why i'm not a deletionist anymore. Yes, this site doesn't meet the Alexa test, yes this site is questionable on WP:WEB (the news piece is a blurb at best, and the award probably isn't notable), yes WP:AUTO was broken, which often makes articles a target for deletion (hell, Jimbo Wales breaks WP:AUTO all the time), but ultimately to me, deleting this smacks of WP:BITE. Dave Seidner here has a website that's on the border of notability, he wrote a decent length article about it that's following WP:NPOV, WP:V("Words of Hope" was some event, albeit, an also non-notable event) and he gets rewarded with an afd right off the bat, several sockpuppets coming to his aid here making things worse, and a few people who are slightly newer than Dave here smacking the "rules"(half the rules around here are broken anyway)in his face with his misplaced good faith contributions on his website here. Just leave the damn thing alone. Karmafist 15:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am a new user. I believed EAC was being deleted for not being noteable. I know it is noteable so I made the recommendation to keep it and gave my own reasons. I did not act as a sock puppet. Discount as you must, but understand there was no bad faith on my part. It was simply my intent to contribute to the discussion. I believe the author has made every effort to address the concerns raised. I will make no further comments. --Nycsmile 01:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article Update Changed some of the section headers to sound more generic and less ad-like. --Dave 11:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the alexa ranking. Stifle 20:56, 20 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]

    • I was going to change to a keep vote, but because of this diatribe I am not. A drop of honey will catch more flies than a barrel of gall. You, and anyone viewing this, are also entitled to refactor comments to the talk page if they are too long. Stifle 16:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Stifle, you're right. I posted the above comment while frustrated over this situation. As a newbie, I didn't realize refactoring on an AfD is acceptable. I don't expect you to change your vote, but I do apologize if I offended you. --Dave 17:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, let's not get too caught up in semantics. I think this entire AFD discussion arose from some personal vendetta; I'm withdrawing my vote because I don't really have an opinion on it. Stifle 17:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (no vote yet): I have cleaned up the article by deleting some headers and a paragraph, but also adding the {{web-stub}} template. I would like to tell thse participating on this vote that they should be aware that this article is a stub. I say this because many people may have voted for deleting the article only because it is incomplete. Meanwhile, I'll take a decision... --Neigel von Teighen 00:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Neigel for cleaning up the article. This is the guidance I was hoping for from a more experienced Wikipedian. I believe so much more can be accomplished at Wikipedia through positive feedback and guidance as opposed to biting the newcomers. I honestly appreciate what you've done, no matter which way you decide to vote.--Dave 01:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, if and only if this article is turned into something like Lernu!. I totally agree with Karmafist, specially when he says that EaC is in "the border of notability". ([1]). But, I would also like to see this article quickly listed on Request for Cleanup (that forgotten tool that can help so much). --Neigel von Teighen 14:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article seems a useful NPOV stub when I read it (see time stamp). AND: I don't like the term wikilawyering either we have policies or we don't and either we apply them or we don't, no one should be criticized for pointing out a failure to adhere to our own policies. Carlossuarez46 01:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the work that has gone into the article to improve it immeasurably, I am changing my vote to a Weak keep. I still agree that it's on the borderline of notability, but it appears now to be within acceptible bounds. The article still has some edits more to clear sections that still feel like advertising, but it's far better than it was in the beginning. On another note, while I do agree with the concept that Dave was "Wikilawyering", this also does prove that the AFD process, as well as the criteria we use for the process, does need to be more heavily scrutinized. If this site were as nn as some (including myself) think/thought it to be, this should have been a far easier and simpler process (especially with the influx of "one-time responders" from EaC). Likewise, to defend it, I don't think that justifications of notability should have been turned into an epic saga. Everyone here's going to need to look at the processes we use both to delete and protect articles in the AFD process, or else we're going to be nothing more than a debating club that gets nowhere.--み使い Mitsukai 15:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain... I've removed my delete vote above. I still don't see sufficient evidence of notability to satisfy me enough to vote keep, but in the interest of good faith and perhaps fostering a little less contentious atmosphere here, I'll withdraw my objection.--Isotope23 17:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep... I'm a new user to EaC, this week in fact. It looked like it was just going to be a skeletal duplicate of the IMDb. But I've found it quite unique, and I've been spending much of my time this week adding votes, films, actors, etc. to the database and comparing votes to others. I'm quite impressed. I believe the site is valuable, and will be moreso as more people find out about it. Agreed that it shouldn't read as a promo.


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/Everyonesacritic.net&oldid=1079909992"