Talk:Movieshack

NZ Herald article

User "Ribfeast" (the James MacAvoy of Movieshack quoted in the article) posted this comment on my Talk page, and I've copied it here as a more central place for any discussion:

Just a quick thing about the amendments to the online DVD records being updated. The NZ Herald interview with Gill South misquoted me on several counts - both market sizes and estimations on company sizes were taken from conversational estimates and printed as fact. Amazing to see how conversation becomes news then a wikipedia fact.

The journalist contacting me did so the day prior to the article being printed, and conversations from both operators in the industry were also misquoted (or had self-interested comments printed). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ribfeast (talk • contribs) 20:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

I've restored my version of this entry, with some changes, and again removed some of the previous text. The foreign provenence of the competition's software, for instance, seems irrelevant, and there is no source for the Radio New Zealand "ranking" to evaluate it. I've removed any specific share range for Movieshack, given the derived nature of the source. The story does, however, provide a basis for the "smallest of the three" phrasing. If other relevant or correcting information is available, please point us to it. The range of Movieshack's subscriber count for instance, although I've found that obtaining this sort of information from small companies is usually difficult. Obviously Mr. MacAvoy has this, but for business reasons may be unwilling to divulge it; this may be understandable, but does raise certain concerns regarding conflict of interest (WP:COI).

I can certainly believe that there can be problems or errors in published stories. However, if information in the story is being challenged, or the usage in this article felt inaccurate or inappropriate, more details should be provided here. The only direct quote of Mr. MacAvoy's in the Herald article was a forward-looking mention of future growth (not used here), so presumably any problem in this area would be the reporter's omitting other information provided by Mr. MacAvoy, something beyond the scope of the reader's knowledge.

The other concern would appear to be the market share estimates in the Herald article. These were comments by an executive with a competitor (Rob Berman of Fatso), and while that of course raises issues, it certainly doesn't automatically disqualify them, either. Using even the most favorable end of the estimates would still leave only a residual 25% of the market for Movieshack, and given that Mr. Berman knows the actual size of his own company, he must either be improbably ignorant of the market (there are only two other companies), or have imposed highly misleading opinions on the Herald's reporter. While the latter is presumably Mr. MacAvoy's view, it isn't immediately obvious that this is the case; if this is an issue we could probably contact the reporter for clarification. - David Oberst 00:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion due to lack of importance or notability

This article could be deleted due to lack of importance or notability. I'm not seeing any particular reason to keep it around. Antidamage1 (talk) 01:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)