Talk:BigSoccer

Soccerpulse
Why is there no page for www.soccerpulse.com while there is a page for bigsoccer.Bigsoccer is a travesty to soccer - very uniformed and biased users there .Quality wise, soccerpulse is a much superior forum .Rosiethegreat 22:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Then create it :) WP is rather inclusive. Although I think I'll agree to disagree vis a vis SoccerPulse vs BigSoccer SirFozzie 22:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, there was a SoccerPulse article, but it was deleted. You can see the arguments here: Articles for deletion/Soccerpulse. If you try to restart the article, it'll get deleted, so you have to do a Deletion review. You'll have to give a convincing reason why it needs to be undeleted.
 * Also, "quality" is subjective and therefore irrelevant to whether a site warrants a Wikipedia article. Whatever you think of its "quality", BigSoccer is more notable. Mosmof 23:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

i have a doubt .If this so-called review works, will I be asked to create a page for soccerpulse?I dont mind giving a review but I dont know how to create a page .The only reason why I brought this up is because I have posted in both forums and I am of the sincere opinion that soccerpulse is a much better forum than bigsoccer(because of which I post only in soccerpulse).The only aspect in which bigsoccer may beat soccerpulse is the fact that it probably has more MLS discussion , BUT discussing the Metro Bulls dont exactly constitute the essence of soccer(or football as i call it).

Soccerpulse has a more knowledgable crowd and its a more ideal place to discuss international football .Personally speaking, I dont know what exactly is the criterion for a discussion forum to have a page on wikipedia but if bigsoccer has a page , then its my duty as a football fan to ask for a page for a clearly superior forum because it will do more justice to football.Rosiethegreat 03:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to respond on your user talk page. Mosmof 04:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Question about Notability
Just wondering about Wikipedia standards and consistency, and why this particular web discussion forum deserves a unique article, while there is no article, for example, for HFBoards. HFBoards is surely the hockey equivalent of BigSoccer, equivalent in scope and notability. It has over 55,000 unique members, and generates actually slightly more total annual posts than BigSoccer. It has posters from all over the globe (including members of the pro hockey community and media), and covers not only NHL, but also minor, junior and college hockey, as well as European leagues and International play and tournaments. And like BigSoccer, there are many off topic sub-boards devoted to other sports and non-sports.

Not trying to start an argument between sports or say that BigSoccer doesn't deserve an article. Just that, if BigSoccer deserves an article, surely HFBoards does as well. The two sites are very similar.140.251.125.50 (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Matt
 * Keep in mind that size or breadth doesn't necessarily beget notability. Without reading any relevant discussions and not knowing much about HFBoards), my guess is that people of importance in the sport (beat writers, players, executives) read and post on BigSoccer. If it was just a message board with a lot of members and forums, I don't think it would be notable at all. --Mosmof (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is this even on wikipedia?
There is nothing notable about bigsoccer. This is nothing more than advertising space.Whatzinaname (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on BigSoccer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061118015559/http://emailwire.com/news/spo3434.shtml to http://www.emailwire.com/news/spo3434.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)