- 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 speedy delete as A7 by MelanieN. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Cine Report
 | 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}}. |
- Cine Report ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability not established Krimuk|90 ( talk) 16:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - totally notable and the article justifies its existence, might need expansion though. GreenTalk 16:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RishabhReporter ( talk • contribs)
- Keep - enough references available. MakingTree ( talk) 16:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC) — MakingTree ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
DeleteSpeedy delete per WP:CSD#A7: no indication of significance. The only thing that even comes close to an indication is an Alexa rank, and that is only for India (globally, the rank is >#150,000). Esquivalience t 16:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: Article depicts a site which is reliable for use as per our guidelines, but reliability does not automatically bestow notability. The site has been latched on to passing mentions in tons of reputed websites which have also used their reports directly or indirectly, but notability demands that significant coverage and some material about the site in third-party sources is necessary. I doubt if these are competent enough to contain the article and on par with WP:WEB. From what I can comprehend, this is a case of WP:BARE where the article just seems on border between notability and non-notability, making its contingency inconceivable beyond WP:TWOPRONGS. But again, what is competent and what is not is again subjective. If more sources could be found, the article's stance would escalate, but until then, it remains as a mere paradigm of bare notability. Khadeerali ( talk) 17:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- Could you provide links to the "tons of reputed websites" in which CineReport is mentioned? -- Krimuk|90 ( talk) 17:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- Note that notability requires verifiable evidence and merely stating that unspecified sources exist is not convincing, especially when there is no indication of significance that can signal the possibility of sources. Esquivalience t 18:14, 20 June 2015 (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.