Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bottom 10


 * 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 no consensus. No consensus for a particular action has emerged within this discussion. North America1000 09:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Bottom 10

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No (or very weak) evidence of independent notability for this web column. Arbor to SJ (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep passes WP:GNG with reliable, independent, third party sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Neologism-tagged since 2011. Majority of the sources are from espn.com itself. Article is mostly summary of the poll and does not establish that the poll is notable. Fails WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by X96lee15 (talk • contribs) 8 November 2015‎  (UTC)
 * Response true that many of the sources are ESPN which does not speak to notability of the article, but they can be used to source the article itself. There are other sources to establish the notability.  While I grant they are listed as few, they should not be ignored.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Paul, can you link to three examples of significant coverage of the Bottom 10 in "reliable, independent, third party sources," i.e., those that are not affiliated with ESPN, ABC, Disney, etc.? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think three is necessarily a "requirement" or threshold, but I just added two: Tulsa World and SportsEdge.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  20:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Keep per Pamulmcdonald. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge to ESPN.com. Not enough significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG.  As a concession we can merge, but it seems WP:UNDUE even there when there is no independent coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 10:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Bottom Ten is not solely an ESPN creation, and it has been a sports byword for decades.  Steve Harvey's column (and coverage of his Bottom 10 in other sources) goes back to the 1960s  .  Here's a 1973 Sports Illustrated piece about Harvey and his column that goes into some detail about its early syndication history.  --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Each of the different "Bottom 10" iterations you have identified above are discretely different subjects, not a single "Bottom 10". Some "Bottom 10" subjects may be notable, others not.  It does not appear there are sufficient significant coverage in independent reliable sources of ESPN's "Bottom 10" to support its notability, and some mention of it may be incorporated into the ESPN article.  Likewise, if Sport Illustrated sports columnist Steve Harvey is notable, perhaps some mention of his "Bottom 10" column would be best incorporated there.  Slamming this different subjects together in a single article is a mess, more like a disambiguation page than an article.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's incorrect and misstates the sources. As spelled out in the sources I cited, Steve Harvey was an LA Times reporter who began his Bottom 10 in the 1960s, then began syndicating it. It was not a Sports Illustrated product. Independent coverage is here.  The current ESPN column is (self-admittedly) a rendition of the same concept as Harvey's column.  There's a clear topic here and it doesn't serve the reader to bury it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies. Please substitute Los Angeles Times (and Chicago Sun-Times) for Sports Illustrated in my comment above, and the basic premise still holds: what significant coverage in independent sources there is of the "Bottom 10" is about Steve Harvey's column, not about ESPN's "Bottom 10".  Yes, one of your linked articles incidentally mentions ESPN, but the subject of the article is Colorado, not ESPN's "Bottom 10".  This article hopelessly confuses Steve Harvey's probably notable "Bottom 10" sports column with ESPN's non-notable bit, which is admittedly a rip-off of Harvey's column.  You are conflating two completely different subjects of the same name; they are not the same thing.  To emphasize that point, according to one of the articles you linked above, Harvey apparently restarted his "Bottom 10" column in 2008, and it was not the same as ESPN's "Bottom 10".  Having a single Wikipedia article for Steve Harvey's column (which is barely mentioned) and ESPN's schtick (for which no significant independent coverage exists) is a promotional mess.  Virtually all of the coverage of the ESPN schtick is -- wait for it -- on ESPN or ESPN.com, and that's not independent coverage.  If you want to keep this article title, it needs to be blown up and re-written as an article about Steve Harvey's column, not sourced with ESPN's non-independent, self-promotional coverage of itself.  If you believe otherwise, please link to significant coverage of ESPN's "Bottom 10" in independent sources (i.e., those sources that are non affiliated with ESPN, ESPN.com, ABC, Disney, etc.).  Thanks.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 00:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Paul Mcdonald. 2605:A601:522:3A01:91E5:F0A6:4807:F8DA (talk) 04:11, 1 December 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.