Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cagepotato


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 17:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Cagepotato

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable website lacking GHITS and GNEWS of substance. Article lacks references that meet criteria to support notability. Appears to fail WP:WEB.  ttonyb (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB. Appears to have received little attention outside of its own site (point 1), while it may be highly trafficked but has no awards (point 2), and its content is not independently distributed "through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster" (point 3).  Fails WP:WEB criteria.  --TreyGeek (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * comment I am still learning the criteria guidelines for wikipedia. The CagePotato entry was modeled after the Sherdog entry, and it not only has many of the same sources, but more. What is it that the Sherdog entry has that keeps it from not being deleted? • Dacreep —Preceding undated comment added 20:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC).
 * Not a good argument for keeping. Also Sherdog is frequently mentioned on MMA TV shows as a source. --Natet/c 10:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * comment Cagepotato has been mentioned on CBSSports, Fight! Magazine, G4’s Attack of the Show and more. Sherdog's entry does not seem to show these "MMA TV" sources, although I do know they are present. I can understand many entries are added to this site that do not need to be here, I do not feel that Cagepotato falls into this category. While the accomplishments might not be as "large" as Sherdog, it is also not an obscure site that is worth simply passing over. --Dacreept
 * Comment – Just being mentioned is not "non-trivial" coverage as required by WP:WEB.  ttonyb  (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Ok see this is where I am getting confused. You say just being "mentioned" is not good enough, yet the comment above mine states that Sherdog is allowed to have an entry because they are "frequently mentioned". Is that not the same thing? If Cagepotato was mentioned more frequently they would be allowed to have an entry? --Dacreept
 * Comment – Just being mentioned is not "non-trivial" coverage as required by WP:WEB. I have not looked at the article you mentioned, but there are articles that may not deserve to be on Wikipedia.  The existence of those non-compliant articles is not justification for this article or any other article to be on Wikipedia.  Each article must stand on its own merits.  See WP:WAX for more information.     ttonyb  (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not saying because one article exists so should this one. What I am trying to understand is why one article, Sherdog specifically, can continue to exist and has since 2006 when it contains basically the same references as Cagepotato. I've been told in the above comments that Cagepotato is not notable enough, yet similar notoriety has allowed another article to escape deletion. I understand there should be a level of consistency when it comes to what stays and what doesn't on WP, I am just having a hard time seeing this consistency with these two articles.Dacreept


 * Comment – There are articles that remain on Wikipedia in spite of the fact they do not meet the necessary criteria. You are welcome to nominate them for deletion.   ttonyb  (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep Provided references (particularly Ref 2,4 and 7) support notbility.--Rirunmot 00:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)


 * Comment – I urge you to reread WP:WEB, WP:GHITS, and WP:RS.  None of the references are about the company and the number of hits a website gets is not a factor in establishing notability.   ttonyb  (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - In as much as an MMA website can ever be notable, this one appears at face value to be reasonably notable. The article is well-presented and well-referenced and the tone remains factual rather than promotional.  I also note from past AfD debates that there appears to be at least a number of Wikipedians committed to keeping these fringe MMA articles maintained.  Also I have left a message on the Martial arts project talk page notifying them of this discussion and asking for expert views. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – Can you please explain how notability is established per the criteria in WP:WEB?
 * Reply - It doesn't have to; it fulfills the general notability guidelines (WP:N), being significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Their stories are commonly picked up and run by other news outlets; see here, here, and here, among others, in addition to numerous reviews of the site by sources as independent as you can get in the incestuous world of MMA web coverage, and multiple product references for their FightPicker app. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – Sorry to have to point this out, but per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail. There is nothing in any of the articles that is even comes close to addressing the subject.  ttonyb  (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - We may have to agree to disagree. I respect your position and the logic underlying it; I just think that these sources (and the other similar ones) DO constitute significant coverage, in that they are "more than a trivial mention" and "need not be the main topic of the source material".  It's a borderline case, sure, but in borderline cases where the article is well-written, referenced, factual, and more or less encyclopedic, I'm inclined to err on the side of Keep. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Ive never understood the OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. I believe that it is quite understandable to question why one article can stay while another cant. After all, Wikipedia is not censored. Portillo (talk) 04:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment – And how does this meet the criteria in WP:WEB?  ttonyb (talk) 05:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep What I am still trying to understand, and why I mentioned the other article Sherdog in the first place, is how the criteria does not fit. I have been reading various articles on WP to understand this further. For someone trying to learn WP, and for someone like myself that hopes to add more articles and become an active member, it is quite confusing to see one article slated for deletion due to certain guidelines, while other almost identical article is safe. It's very confusing. Its hard to learn guidelines and rules when they seem to be fluid. --Dacreept —Preceding undated comment added 02:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC).


 * Comment – And how does this meet the criteria for establishing notability? As I indicated you need to read WP:WAX.  This AfD is not about other articles meeting or not meeting Wikipedia criteria.  The bottom line is there are articles in Wikipedia that do not meet the criteria and anyone is welcome to nominate them for deletion.  Each article needs to stand on its own merits and the argument that there are other articles in Wikipedia that do not meet the criteria is not a valid argument to keep this one.  The sole purpose of this AfD is to assess if this article meets Wikipedia criteria for inclusion.  Something that no one has shown to be the case.   ttonyb  (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Then why has no one in this discussion slated articles such as Sherdog for deletion? I'm not going to, I don't believe either should be deleted. I'm sorry, but it just seems a bit ridiculous that this article gets pinned down, and another one that shares the same criteria is still safe. I understand that each article must stand by its own merit, I get that, its not too hard to follow it's a propositional fallacy otherwise. What is hard to follow is the consistency of what passes and what doesn't. Its very similar to saying a patron to a restaurant cannot come in without shoes or shirt, yet another patron has been doing so since 2006. Yet all the attention has been put on this new patron. If I was the only one that believed this article worthy of being included on WP, I would have happily let it pass.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dacreep (talk • contribs) 06:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Just for refence when comparing to sherdog Alexia ranks are Cagepotato:12,335th, Sherdog 2,368th (not definitive but helpful) i.e. comparing to sherdog is not a good bench mark.
 * Comment – Again, read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and Inclusion is not an indicator of notability they both discuss this type of bias and are very explicit that, "Inclusion is not an indicator of validity."  I have no idea why the other article has not been nominated for deletion and frankly it is irrelevant to this discussion.  This is not the place to discuss inequities in Wikipedia policy.  Anyone is welcome to do so on the appropriate Wikipedia guideline talk page.  If your argument is sufficient and consensus can be reached, the policy will be changed.  In the meantime, I ask the basic question that should be the only concern of this AfD, how does this article meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia.  I still see no indication by anyone of how this article meets the criteria for inclusion.  ttonyb  (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment – I have read that page, and will do so again. As stated in my previous comment I was not arguing that inclusion is an indicator of validity, I was arguing consistency. If rules are going to be laid down, they need to be applied universally. For this specific article the "content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works" such as: Fight! Magazine, G4's Attack of the Show on G4 TV, Cage Radio (not affiliated with Cagepotato) and Yahoo! Sports to name a few. All of these are not affiliated with Cagepotato, are well known publications and sites, and feature content from Cagepotato not simple mentions or links.  --Dacreep (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Neutral has some sourcing but needs a clean up and phrases like " making it one of the most popular MMA sites on the web" leave a POV tang. --Natet/c 14:41, 15 February 2010 (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.