Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/247Sports.com


 * 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   keep. L Faraone  00:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

247Sports.com

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No clear notabililty; lacking sources. Flamebait Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 03:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I marked it that it needs more sources and some other stuff. Bob herry     talk  03:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Someone added a source. Bob herry    talk  03:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No amount of providing links to the forum in question will make it notable. The content speaks for itself.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 03:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to say it but DELETE. Theres just to much vandlism. Bob herry     talk  04:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  04:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  04:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  04:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  04:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Too much vandalism isn't a good reason for deletion: please see WP:LIKELYVIOLATION. It lacks WP:Secondary sources but claims notability on the basis of a content deal with CBS. I can see some coverage online, so will try to reference it better. Notability is weak so far. Captain Conundrum (talk) 09:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - article now credibly demonstrates notability with multiple secondary WP:RS. Captain Conundrum (talk) 10:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Theopolisme ( talk )  00:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)




 * Keep Weak delete, though I'm genuinely torn. Of the 7 sources currently provided, the first three use information provided by the subject, they are not about the subject, certainly not significant coverage. The last is from the subject itself, so obviously not independent. Of the three that remain, two are from the same source (Sports Business Daily), considered one source for the purposes of notability and the other (Sports Illustrated) is written by someone who works for the subject and ends with a promotional link to the subject site. Really, the only sources that would be considered independent and significant coverage of the subject would be the two from the same writer at the Sports Business Daily, still considered one source. That's not multiple, secondary WP:RS in my book. I was able to find this article from the Nashville Business Journal, though it basically just confirms what is in the SBD and that's a little "one event" for me. But I'll say this - it won't take much to convince me. One more decent RS that gives significant coverage to the subject (preferably not about the CBS deal) and we'll be there I reckon. Stalwart 111  04:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You know what? This article from the Sports Business Daily is different to the content of the Nashville Business Journal, even if the other SBD article is about the same thing. So that's two different stories in two different sources (not "one event") with significant coverage across the three. That's enough for me. I'll add that source to the article and I've changed my !vote above. Stalwart 111  04:32, 17 May 2013 (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.