There are numerous reason why this article should not be deleted. This first is the impact the website and websites like it has had on mass media and culture. Second the website represents a subsect of culture. Finally this is an opening to a new type of articles that need to start sometime and somewhere, and should not be dictated by the whims of what network news deems important such as Anna Nicole Smith.
First mass media has an impact on culture. We can see this by the awareness brought about by movies such as Blood Diamond and the like. Therefore anything that has an effect on mass media as a dirrect link to mainstream culture. This website and those like it have had this effect, most notably in comic book movies. We just need to look at the box office sales of comic book movies to see what kind of role comic book movies has in the film department. The dirrectors, writers and actors all participate in the forums of this particular website as well as sit down for interveiws. Therefore this website and sites like it participate in the cultural shift in the world.
Next, this website is where an entire subsect of cutlure converges to talk about one of their favorite subjects. This should be a recorded and treated as valid like any other culture would be. Who is to say this is important or not? I would present other cultures deemed inconsequental and thus expendable, such as native americans. No one has the right to say this is not important.
Finally, if Anna Nicole Smith gets a web page, then why not this site? Just because mass media dictates that Anna Nicole Smith is newsworthy, does not make it so. Don't allow this to happen where mass media automatically dictates what is, and what is not important. It should be the other way around as explained in my first argument. We should, as on these sites, dictate what is, and what is not important. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Acecool79 (talk • contribs).
Well, as it happens I strongly think this page should be kept and expanded, but I'll mention two things for you Acecool79: 1) Arguments made here on the talk page will most likely have no influence on the deletion debate. The closing administrator will likely only look at the arguments on the article for deletion entry for this article. 2) Again, I happen to think it should be kept, but I'll mention that for the most part your arguments above may have little or no bearing on the decision. You ask "Who is to say this is important or not?" and the answer, in this case, is WP:WEB, the wikipedia guidelines for notability for websites. Also I'll mention that arguments like "if Anna Nicole Smith gets a web page, then why not this site?" don't generally mean very much, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
I think the page should be kept, and I strongly encourage you or anyone else to give their opinion on the AfD debate...but realistically this article is in bad shape and needs to be improved to make it wiki-worthy. The deletion nomination (in my opinion) was in good faith and had some justification, based on the state of the article when it was nominated. Improve the article please, don't argue a philosophy of what the article might possibly be. -Markeer 13:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Umm, that's what I was trying to say. The editor making the comments above did not sign. Leuko 15:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The site holds this kind of contest to discover aspiring comic book artists. Some of them are already working in the industry. I think it is notable to add this (dang, i was one of the unlucky who didnt make the cut) †Bloodpack† 04:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes I think it is worth a mention - if we can get enough reliable sources together then it could warrant a smallish section.
Sorry to hear you didn't win - if you don't mind me asking which was your entry? (Emperor 19:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC))
I should have done a bit of digging before asking - good stuff. (Emperor 20:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC))
here are some of the past contestants who successfully landed a job in the comic book industry through the CBI contest †Bloodpack† 04:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that - I've now added the information, I am sure there is more but that is a solid start. (Emperor (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC))
thanks too emp, im kinda lazy to do it =] anyways, i made some additions †Bloodpack† 07:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: nomination withdrawn. Further discussion may be required at Talk:Salon.com and/or Talk:TMZ.com, but it's clear there is no consensus to move this article. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Comic Book Resources → ComicBookResources.com – I can certainly see the point in not having .com when there's a print analog to a website. In this case, I believe titling this article "Comic Book Resources" gives a misimpression that it exists as a print publication and not solely as a website. I'd use the longstanding Salon.com or TMZ.com as example, since they could have been disambiguated as "Salon (website)" or "TMZ (website)" or similar. Not using ".com" in the title as an indicator seems unintentionally misleading. Removing the .com also seems to suggest there is something wrong or inferior about being a web-only publication, when this is simply factual and neutral. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Additionally, in terms of common usage, aside from seeing the full name with in book footnotes, I noticed last night reading Avengers Academy #25 (April 2012) that a house ad on page 20 of the issue contains blurbs attributed to ComicsBulletin.com, Comicvine.com, and iFanboy.com, among similar others, while the Daredevil house ad opposite in on page 21 has ComicBookResources.com. Notably, the ads also make a distinction with print publications, citing USA Today and Complex. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose, I looked through the inline references, and both the Eagle Awards and the University of Buffalo use "Comic Book Resources". I'd also strongly disagree about it being misleading, or suggesting web-only stuff is inferior - where did you get that from? Cross porpoises (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Tenebrae is not suggesting that at all, he stated that the act of removing the ".com" makes web-only stuff seem inferior. Still I suggest using whatever the common name of the website is.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - I just spent a fair amount of time looking over a BUNCH of pages, both policy pagess, and article examples. First, I can't find ANY guideline which says that using *.com is the suggested guidance. And in lack of that, we should go with "common practice". And I don't see it in common practice either. Facebook, Hotmail, Google, Internet Movie Database, etc. Best as I can tell, the .com suffix should ONLY be used as a disambiguation. Which would explain why it's used at Salon and TMZ. Not seeing any need for disambiguation here, I must oppose. - jc37 19:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME is a fair point, and I'm willing to withdraw the request, though we should probably keep it up for a week since there may be additional, third views we haven't brought up. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Strong Oppose -
It requires no disambiguation
The site's banner reads "Comic Book Resources", not "ComicBookResources.com"
What is the actual point in this? On the article page, CBR is introduced as "ComicBookResources.com", and that's the name used for the infobox, too, and later in the article. Why? I can't see any reason why all those "ComicBookResource.com"'s shouldn't be changed immediately to "Comic Book Resources", myself. In the case of Amazon, the ".com" is actually part of the name (and in the logo), so it's not even a matter of disambiguation there---that's the actual name of the company. That's not the case with CBR. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 23:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. While the name of some websites seem to include the ".com", some do not. As Curly Turkey notes above, CBR seems to be called Comic Book Resources. ".com" is simply the necessary domain suffix. Nightscream (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Looking at Wikipedia:COMMONNAME, it seems that we should aim for naturalness and conciseness. A comparision may be made with the usage of a full corporate name. For example, the Wikipedia article for Time Warner Inc. is called "Time Warner". Terms such as "Inc.", "Corp.", and "Ltd." are usually not used in article titles. The ".com" suffix is so ubiquitous now, that including it in the article title is unnecessary. I cede the point to Tenebrae in regards to "Amazon.com" and "Salon.com", but except where the ".com" is needed for disambiguation, it should not be included. Mtminchi08 (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Withdrawing proposal From the discussion here and at Talk:Comics Bulletin, it seems WP:SNOWBALL at this point, so while protocol is to wait seven days, I'm happy to withdraw my proposal, provided we have some consistency. If the name is Comic Book Resources and not ComicBookResources.com, then the names are Salon and TMZ. We don't need ".com" to disambiguate; Salon (website) and TMZ (website) disambiguate without changing the names. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.