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 delete. (anonymous votes ignored). mikka (t) 22:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Blatant spamvertisement" -- Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 19:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Please sign your comments by typing ~~~~. Thank you, and only post if you have "good opinions"'.

• Delete, per nom. Oh, and addition to their FAQ..."Why was I deleted from Wikipedia?" -^demon 20:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep:Upcoming site. The next tv.com....even better. don't delete and there is nothing wrong with it. If it sounds like it is advertising it, change it a bit, so i doesnt sound like it. If tv.com can stay at wiki, why cant tvrage. Amaas120 01:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. B.Wind 01:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This is a real site! Why would it be deleted?! TV.com and TV Tome are allowed to stay.
• Keep: Delete? No. There are only two or three pages linking to the article - if that's considered "spamvertisement", this happens on a much larger scale to sites like tv.com. I do think it needs a cleanup/rewrite appelsap 4:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: There's nothing wrong with it. It deserves to be here with tv.com and tvtome. don't delete this off of here!
• Comment Please consider voting on the article's merit as per established inclusion guidelines at WP:WEB, not because of its tone. If it reads like an advertisement, then either copyedit it or put {{advertisement}} tag and move on. That's it. Also, please sign your posts by typing ~~~~ Thank you. -- Perfecto 00:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The site generates no money, and therefore, cannot be considered a giant advertisement! It is an information site. The site's focus is on cataloging television shows from the birth of television to now. It's database is fast and growing. It is what many consider the best alternative to Tv.com's highly inaccurate guide. Tv.com I might add, is filled with flash ads. Tv.com is the site that should be deleted from wikipedia, for being one giant ad site with bad information. There is no reason for TVRage to be deleted. The only reason it's even up for consideration is because people from CNET probably complained until someone finally gave in and said yes.
• Keep: There is nothing wrong with it.
• Comment 170.20.11.116 did it again. This IP removed the AfD tag, and the article went without it for 30 hours. Your disrespectful behaviour is not welcome here. Please go away. You guys asked, "If tv.com can stay at wiki, why cant tvrage." Answer: TV.com has 726 Alexa rank, 89 million Google hits, and has mention in various reliable sources and over 500 wikipedia articles. TVrage? What's that? I ask: "Is the article a contribution? Will Wikipedia gain from an article from the site, or the other way around?" Answer this before saying "keep" again. -- Perfecto 01:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I say keep. I don't represent either site, I'm justa former editor for TvTome who is retired. To reply to the above, the only reason TV.com has the hits it gets is because for months, it was the ONLY television site on the net, coped with the fact that it started off with TvTome's share of frequent visitors. And if you were to break down those hits, most of them are from people who are clicking the old TvTome links. PLUS, it's membership system is linked to the rest of Cnet's sites, generating 1/3rd of it's usership by force alone. If that site were to have started cold, it would be low in numbers as well. Plus, TVrage is not the only small televison website you've allowed to remain here. Sites like EPGuides and TV IV get just as low of visitorship, and you keep them around. TVrage is in the exact same place TvTome was 3 years ago. In time, it will be competing with TV.com on a major level. As far as benefits go, in full honesty, I don't see how Wikipedia benefits from ANY of the info on its site. Nor do I see how TV.com's listing benefits you. I'd really like to see if you're getting 89 million hits through your listing of them here. You don't charge, there are little to no ads... this place is one giant reference library for the world. To deny information based on Google hits and how it benefits you in the longrun is just plain biast. If TVrage were a porno site, I'd agree with you. But it's not. It's a television library and archive that is growing twice as fast in info as TV.com is daily. Yeah, they have a large library to catch up on, but TV.com's submission process and constant problems isn't helping them stay on top either. Give it three months and watch the site grow. If it doesn't do anything for you, put it back up for deletion and see how that goes. If it keeps growing, leave it be. I really don't see what the problem here is. --GenuineMind--
• Keep: We are not at tv rage to seek salvation nor are we their to mock tv.com, even though it should be... TV Rage is a user friendly site, and for wiki to just delete it off of this site, well it's just demeaning. -Batman Beyonder.
• Keep: Why should this be deleted? It's a real site with real information!
• Comment- When are you guys deciding to keep or deleting this, or are you waiting for more "Deletes". (Perfecto probably works at Tv.com)
• Well, Epguides has no article here. TV IV barely survived deletion last month. (It had one major media coverage.) Your other points get no argument from me, though. But now that I've put time to examine the site for merit, I'll put my vote. Delete — fails WP:WEB: no national or international media attention; zero verifiable impact outside its user community; Alexa rank 1,560,223; "link:tvrage.com" give nn results; finally, article itself does not assert any notability. -- Perfecto 02:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- The site is one month old and is establishing itself. How do you expect international attention when they've barely had time to establish national attention? But it does catalog international shows, which will bring in international appeal. Impact, again, needs time. And the article is notable from a legal standpoint. Tv.com announced they owned all the rights to information posted on its site. AND, that they would seek legal action against any further websites who tried to start up. In other words, they wanted to cover the market. However, the site is an information site and is posting OTHER people's copyrighted material. TVrage is the first site to defy them and point out that they have no legal ground to stand on. If they hadn't stood up for themselves and other sites existing, they'd be dead by now. Again, give them three months and let them grow. See where they stand after that time. --GenuineMind--

  Hi there! Wikipedia is not to be used to ESTABLISH notoriety, as your post seems to suggest. Please review WP:WEB to see why this website does not belong, at least, not yet. Regards, - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- On the contrary, several articles on your site have been used to establish notoriety. Tv.com in itself is a perfect example. Only up for 6 months, popularity only driven by it's predicessor, and it's staying? Don't tell me that site came under review and stayed. Pretend Wikipedia was back in 1994, and Nirvana just ended. Would you have posted an artticle on the Foo Fighters 6 months after Cobain's death? I think not. I've reviewed the WP:WEB three times now. And every time a new argument is presented, I counter act it. Then a new set of them come up, as if you're reaching for straws hoping to find the right one. It just feels as if this page was singeled out for deletion, and nothing we say can prevent it. Despite the 3-1 ratio of "Keep" votes from people not working for Wikipedia. Despite the fact that you agreed with me on many of my points. And despite the fact that no matter what what we say, you're not giving the website a chance to grow for a while and come under review. I know someone brought this site to your attention and demanded it be deleted. Even I can't believe you would just happen to trip over it and decide this rock needs to go. It just feels a little too suspicious, especially after Tv.com's director declaired they were raging war on TVrage. --GenuineMind--

  Hi there! We love conspiracy theories here at Wikipedia, so if you could provide more details, we'd appreciate it! Your post suggests that you're not familiar with WP:TINC, I hope you find value! As a note, anonymous votes from users who have not created accounts or have few edits are usually disregarded, so the 3:1 ratio you mentioned isn't going to be as helpful as you think. I hope you can come out the other side of this matter intact and continue to contribute to Wikipedia! Your passion can be focused, and I look forward to seeing your future articles on subjects that meet notability requirements. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- I really wish I could, but my heart lies with my real job and other projects I'm more passionate about. If you paid me, I'd join in a heartbeat, but I doubt you pay. And even if you did, at this point I'm really disheartened by this. I'm hard working and very accurate, but I can't put my energy behind a site that seems biast. I mean, why not examine every TV related site? In essence, aren't all of them using you as a promotion site to gain notoriety? Especially when TV.com is one giant ad, and has done nothing to help you back. I'm not accusing anyone of being bribed, more along the lines of someone being harrassed or persuaded by someone over there. Plus, you haven't really given an indication that the site would be allowed back, or given any options to them on how they can come back or stay. Further supporting the idea that this site was picked to be removed for good. It's just wrong. And if this is how your website is going to be, I don't see a point in supporting it or adding to it. And the real shame of that is, no one will see this poor example of management. This conversation will be deleted right along with it and no one will see why it was removed or how this conversation went. So not only will it be deleted, but there will be no record of why it was deleted, and how it went down. Again, it's just wrong. --GenuineMind--
• Delete as spam. Pilatus 04:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why didn't you answer my last question? Amaas120 04:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't know why this would be deleted. It exists therefore can be included in Wikipedia. As a member of both tv.com and tvrage.com , I can attest to the fact everything mentioned by the author of the Wikipedia entry is accurate.
• Delete as spam. Khan44 00:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. TV.com deserves the article, this doesn't. Doesn't meet WP:WEB. Jacoplane 01:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- I know this is impossible to ask, but could we get one single comment from someone who isn't involved with either of the feuding websites, and just give an honest opinion of the page and the site posted? And again, how does the site qualify as Spam? We make no money, we don't advertise, we don't sell products, no pop-ups, and no email scams. It's a media library, without the media.

• Delete. --Khoikhoi 06:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: TVRage is getting more and more known by the day and in time will surpass TV.com TV.com isn't a very valuable tool if you are looking for guides on TV series, but TVRage is. It isn't fair to keep TV.com and remove TVRage. If you want to remove Rage, they both should go.
• Delete. nn. mikka (t) 22:50, 15 December 2005

• Keep: TVRage is one of the most informative television sites around these days, and while the forum moderators are lenient, that doesn't mean they allow spam. They just have a better way of going about it by locking the spam threads, rather than deleting them and taking them into Area 51 like they never happened. Some, of course, are deleted if a spammer makes threads that cover the whole first page, but other than that, they confront spam, not ignore it. TV.com could learn from TVRage.

(UTC)

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.