Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PbNation


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

PbNation

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Failed, since July 2008 request, to prove notability. Kickstart70 - T - C 06:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per improvements done by User:Bilby Delete or merge to Paintball. Poorly sourced article and its few sources feel marvelously like WP:ADVERT.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails notability. I don't support a merge to paintball. Not likely any substantial text to place, and it would end up as an EL. It seems a bit against the WP:EL policy to me if it were in paintball. However, if a clever editor can find a way to integrate it into the article content and use it as a reference, I'm fine with that. Chaldor (talk) 07:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as I don't see how there can be notability from this nonsense. DO NOT merge with Paintball. That would be dumb as there really isn't anything to merge except for the URL. Tavix (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Let's not confuse ARTICLE QUALITY with SUBJECT NOTABILITY. While the article clearly needs work, it does establish notability with independent references from Forbes and Chicago Tribune as well as a paintball publication.  It also appears to have considerable coverage in other unaffiliated paintball media.  (http://www.68caliber.com/features/editorials/story042516.php, for example) Raehl (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The first reference is one paintball website talking about another one. The second is just talking about online advertising purchases and PbNation gets about half a sentence mention. The third doesn't actually link to a reference or citation...it just claims that this citation exists, then links to the Wikipedia page for the Chicago Tribune. Maybe the site really IS notable enough, but based on the evidence presented (which is all we really case base it on), it makes a bad case for that notability. -- Kickstart70 - T - C 03:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - At this stage I'm not inclined to make a call for keep or delete, however as regards general (non-wp) notability, the argument that it is the major online resource for the sport should probably carry some weight. The Chicago Tribune article is short, but it does as the article states - lists five "tips" for turning pro, and the first tip is to get involved in PbNation. In terms of the article it is non-trivial, but it is a short mention. The Forbes article is a trivial mention, and doesn't count towards notability as such, but it does provide evidence of the importance of the forum. If the claims that it is the major online forum for paintball is accurate, then I would imagine that the paintball publications would provide enough to establish notability, but I don't have access to any to confirm. Perhaps someone knowledgeable about the sport could clarify this. - Bilby (talk) 03:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - The first reference is on a paintball website indexed by Google News. Regardless, whether the site is "just another paintball site" or not is irrelevant; the question is whether it is an independent reference, which it clearly is.  And while each reference may not, by itself, establish notability, I can't see how the combination does not, at a minimum, show that notability has not been and can't be established, which are the criteria for notability deletion. Raehl (talk) 07:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - We need to be careful here, not to give Undue weight to references that do. Jimbo's quote there should be the determining factor. -- Kickstart70 - T - C 03:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. There appear to be quite a lot of reliable sources at .   Little Red Riding Hood  talk  23:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I see some ongoing improvements on the content of the page, and maybe that is a good sign. If some more concentration is made to prove notability, I will change my own opinion to "Keep". -- Kickstart70 - T - C 03:22, 7 October 2008 (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.