Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ESPN BottomLine


 * 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 delete. While as well-written as an article on a news ticker can be, no references have been provided to demonstrate either notability or accuracy in this article, nor was there any reference to supporting policy by the editors moving to keep. If they can be provided (or if someone wants to merge this to a related article), there's always WP:DRV. Tijuana Brass (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

ESPN BottomLine

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unreferenced article about a sports ticker. I can't see the notability.  brew crewer  (yada, yada) 05:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Doc Strange (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Whatever next? An article on the fact that there's always a clock in the corner of the screen on CNN? Or a whole new Category: News Stations that Have Screen-Bottom Tickers (CNN, Al Jazeera, Fox News, Sky News, and so on, and so on, ad infinitum). AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This pains me. On one hand, I agree that there is no logical reason that the ESPN BottomLine should have its own page.  On the other hand, this ticker is more complex than those that AlasdairGreen mentioned.  It has many categories and usage rules as explained.  The CNN, Fox News, BBC World, Al-Jazeera, and other tickers mentioned come in only one flavor, as it were. As for the page being "unreferenced," another valid point is made here.  However, I imagine that somewhere on ESPN.com is the reference that is needed.  Either I or someone else can find it. I concede that it may be hard for me to keep this page up.  But I feel that I must do everything to save it before it goes away.  I have already seen the Steve Beverly and Boni Blackstone pages get the boot, and I hate for it every time it happens.  (For the removal of the Beverly page, I blame Union University for not putting up a bio online, but that's their problem.) - Desmond Hobson (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Can't find it on ESPN.com. I invite others to try to find it through another source, and if it's not anywhere else, please remove it.  I have placed all the contents in my sandbox, so that at least it's saved somewhere. - Desmond Hobson (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I can see the notability of a news ticker, sports ticker, etc. It's the written companion to the spoken words on a news channel, and as the article demonstrates, it can be tailored to fit the network's needs. Mandsford (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. My initial reaction was to delete, but upon reading the article I do see information that evolves and fluctuates from the actual network broadcast. It does provide info and I even googled and saw some instances where it is being used as a source... Ie: "According to ESPN's Bottom Line..."  Frog47 (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - well, it's notable. I guess this is one of those few times when I believe that WP:NOT (does that section still exist) applies to an AFD. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Move relevant content into ESPN related articles (if it's not there already). RobJ1981 (talk) 01:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm with Spartan here - This fits our criteria well enough to live here, but I wouldn't put it in WP 1.0 --CastAStone//(talk) 21:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - not a source in sight and WP:OR. TerriersFan (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2007 (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.