- 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 keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Movie Review Query Engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unclear if this organization satisfies WP:NOTE, and whether or not it "has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". The article appears to function as a form of WP:Vanispamcruftisement. -- Cirt (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNeutral Completely unnotable website. Completely fails WP:WEB and WP:N, and appears to be nothing but spam that managed to sneak in awhile back and stay hidden until they tried to pimp it more. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to neutral. It clearly was spammed and is having serious COI issues from its editors, and I don't think the NYT blog posts provides much towards notability. However, in looking at Google Books there seems to be at least some indication of possible notability with 96 hits[1], including being mentioned by Roger Ebert in one of his books[2]. Leaning towards incubation to be completely rewritten from a neutral perspective and further research to see if the book mentions plus, as noted by C.Fred, searches outside of Google, can produce enough for a proper article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's not a lot of coverage, but it was written about in the New York Times, so it seems like the nomination hinges on the reading of "significant." I'd rather see more attempts at expansion and discussion on the talk page before I'm willing to axe this article. Based on the claims in the article about the subject's longevity, there should be more coverage (Wired archives, anybody?). —C.Fred (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think being given a short mention in a blog post is the same as actual significant coverage by the New York Times. That said, changing mine to a neutral based on comment above. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I was able to find a lot of coverage for it (do a Google book search), but no significant coverage that dealt with the subject in depth. I wouldn't consider it spam; it seems to have been a significantly popular website at one time. Narthring (talk • contribs) 03:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep some coverage, not in depth though [3]. LibStar (talk) 07:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Not a lot of coverage but discussed in reliable sources (see above). --Eleassar my talk 14:29, 3 June 2010 (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.