243:
I heard of this website a while back in a printed newspaper. Website is relatively new, so not a surprise there aren't a huge number of notable publications about it, but did find some online mentions which, while not all about
Flixster, refer to it as a fact of the Web in the same breath as
305:
may disagree with the notability of some of the references, the net is run by blog-makers these days. And having a regular commentor for the BBC mention
Flixster in passing as if it were something everyone should know about it a positive, rather than a negative point for
326:
heard of, I must be a commentator with my finger on the pulse" -- but that's just my cynical opinion. (ii) The fact that there's 100x more bloggers than a couple of years ago doesn't make them more reliable, which is why they're explicitly mentioned as a
335:
look a lot better than when it was nominated, and probably wouldn't have come under the scrutiny of an AfD if the original editors had put in the effort you did. PS I thought the net was run by the same porn barons and online gambling sites as always...
215:- Flixster is well-known amongst film fans, predominantly teenagers. The Alexa rank is reliant because it shows how popular a website is, and for a site less than 1 year old, as has been said, a rank of 2,400 is quite good
262:. Article itself needs improving, but is not incapable of being a good article. There are plenty of stubs on Knowledge that have the capability of growing if not deleted too early and I think this is one of them.
110:
322:-- we'll have to agree to disagree on several points; (i) The entire quote from the BBC seemed like a bit of name-dropping to me -- "look at the esoteric sites
141:
117:
Non notable website, article reads like advertisement/spam, would have CSD or prod, but another user on IRC would have contested
17:
83:
78:
87:
360:
70:
36:
278:, and it only mentions Flixster in passing -- the site is not the subject of the article. So, I reckon it fails
359:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
178:
as A7. If it's possible, could an admin compare the content of this article with the deleted one please? --
190:
259:
127:
342:
310:
292:
266:
235:
219:
207:
195:
159:
131:
52:
156:
149:
118:
179:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
204:
49:
307:
263:
145:
283:
228:
168:
152:
74:
256:
253:
147:
339:
328:
302:
289:
275:
203:- no claim of notability in the article. I place no reliance at all on Alexa rank.
172:
151:, possibly a bit early. Seems to be driven by word-of-mouth & blogs so far. --
104:
279:
232:
216:
331:(see "Using online and self-published sources"). Having said all that, it
66:
58:
249:
245:
286:, although given its Alexa rank, it may become notable in due course.
274:- of the external references above, only the BBC one seems like a
353:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
140:, site is at 2400 Alexa rank which is good for <1 year old.
176:
175:. An article with this title has already been speedied
100:
96:
92:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
363:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
7:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
301:please see my edits. Although
252:, and a quickly growing site:
1:
343:21:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
311:18:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
293:17:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
267:12:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
236:18:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
220:18:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
208:18:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
196:22:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
160:18:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
132:03:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
53:04:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
329:largely unacceptable source
380:
356:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
144:Minor mentions in media
167:Looks a lot like
130:
371:
358:
193:
189:
185:
182:
126:
123:
108:
90:
34:
379:
378:
374:
373:
372:
370:
369:
368:
367:
361:deletion review
354:
276:reliable source
191:
187:
183:
180:
119:
81:
65:
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
377:
375:
366:
365:
349:
348:
347:
346:
314:
313:
296:
269:
238:
222:
210:
198:
162:
115:
114:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
376:
364:
362:
357:
351:
350:
345:
344:
341:
334:
330:
325:
321:
318:
317:
316:
315:
312:
309:
304:
300:
297:
295:
294:
291:
285:
281:
280:verifiability
277:
273:
270:
268:
265:
261:
260:Internet data
258:
255:
251:
247:
242:
239:
237:
234:
230:
226:
223:
221:
218:
214:
211:
209:
206:
202:
199:
197:
194:
186:
177:
174:
170:
166:
163:
161:
158:
154:
150:
148:
146:
143:
139:
136:
135:
134:
133:
129:
124:
122:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
355:
352:
337:
332:
323:
319:
298:
287:
271:
240:
224:
212:
200:
171:or at least
164:
137:
120:
116:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
306:notability.
213:Strong keep
205:Eludium-q36
50:Luna Santin
308:GDallimore
284:notability
264:GDallimore
257:Film Stew
138:Weak keep
254:BBC News
153:Dhartung
111:View log
67:Flixster
59:Flixster
340:DeLarge
303:DeLarge
299:Comment
290:DeLarge
250:YouTube
246:MySpace
184:Solomon
165:Comment
84:protect
79:history
272:Delete
233:Addhoc
229:WP:WEB
227:fails
225:Delete
201:Delete
88:delete
320:Reply
217:Enton
181:Islay
142:chart
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
333:does
324:I've
282:and
241:Keep
231:...
192:talk
157:Talk
128:talk
121:MECU
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
169:COI
109:- (
338:--
288:--
173:OR
155:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
48:.
248:/
188:|
125:≈
113:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.