Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philliesphans.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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was DELETE.  Rob e  rt  23:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Philliesphans.com
Non-notable fansite. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, article is promotional, links already mentioned on Philadelphia Phillies. - Mgm|(talk) 09:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep

This is the best phan site in the history of phandom. To delete a Philadelphia fan website would be yet another blow in a long sorry history of Philliephandom. It is OK with me if you delete the Phillies web site, if that violates some Wiki rules. If given a chance this page will grow into a source of baseball knowledge and philadelphia phandom knowledge.joboggi Sept 30, 2005
 * Above comment by anonymous user User:208.59.165.121, who has three edits, all involving this article and this AFD page.  Ral  315   WS  15:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep- Keep it. You will feel better about yourself.
 * Delete in agreement with Mgm. From the stub: "With WilliamC as the catalyst of great posters and analysis this site has come a long way from its beginning."  Too bad that's not true for the nominated WP page.  Barno 15:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per above- site is non-notable in Wikipedia terms.  Ral  315   WS  15:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * KeepWhile this is indeed a fan site, it is unique from other fan sites in the way it is organized and maintained. This is the kind of thing that should be preserved for posterity.
 * Delete per MGM. Can't say the "unsigned" voters are helping their case much, either. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  18:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Deletion makes me feel like a big man. Delete as a non-notable and unremarkable fansite. Lord Bob 19:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep-I came across this page today and I find it very valuable. I get to see how phillies fans think on a real board.

Keep-I originally said delete, but finding now that there is an entry for "Sons of Sam Horn" I've changed my opinion. The entry will be upgraded in terms of appearance and content shortly, if it is not deleted, by board members. I have no idea why "Sons" should be notable, but "philliesphans" wouild be non-notable. Is is a Red Sox vs. Phillies thing, or does it have to do with the entry itself? --phillychuck, a moderator of said site.

Keep- and it seems the majority here agrees.
 * Just a note that the forum does have a topic about the Wikipedia article and its AfD status, and though they, to their credit, don't seem to be calling out the vote on this, I think it's safe to say that the majority if not the entirety of this collection of anonys are simply forum members sticking up for their board. Lord Bob 20:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I just read that, and think it's worth mentioning that they do seem to be fairly mature about it, which is better than a number of forum-based stuff that's been deleted in the past. The post by "donmoney" is particularly good and quite reasonable about the whole thing.  For anyone coming here from the forum, I'd like to point out that ( 1 ) we're voting about the topic, not the article... it isn't a matter of making it bigger, or adding pictures, or anything like that ( 2 ) votes from new or anonymous users generally aren't counted, and a whole lot of them tends to make the article look bad and thus less likely to be kept.  Feel free to comment and add to the discussion though. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  20:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Even though I initiated the AfD, I'd like to second Starblind's note on how they are handeling it. Props.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete per Mgm. Nice to see some new users around, though. -Splash talk 20:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

As noted above, Son of Sam Horn warrants a page. If you take a look at the site it is as good as any, and certainly as good as Son of Sam Horn. The discussion of sabremetrics demystifies these stats for many uninformed phans. The folks posting are generally professionals. donmoney being a lawyer, PC is in stats and so on. As with Son of Sam Horn the contacts that post on the site often scoop the media on Phillies information. The site is not commercial in any way, contrary to a note at the top of the page. joboggi

Delete, delete, delete. This group makes baseball sound so dry and empty. Lacking in passion and color. Their use of stats is pointed out as a reason to be allowed on wiki. Their gross overuse of stats sucks all the life out of this passionate game. This is not an attempt at serious archiving but in advertising this site. Delete.

Let me add a comment--we have no need nor desire to advertise the board broadly (or narrowly). We want quality of content, not quantity, and we do not run a single advertisement, nor make a single cent profit from any poster. The site is entirely privately funded by the founder, and has never accepted a donation nor solicited support of any kind. If one is a phillies fan (or likes to discuss politics or philosophy), sure, we'd love to have you come by occasionally. My feeling still is that SOSH, though a bit more prominent nationally, is a perfect precedent for this decision (wiki mgmt may not know that this board was notable in the fight by private fan boards to stop MLB from shutting down private fan sites, was written up in the Phila. Inquirer for this, and participated materially in getting the Phils to acknowledge (again with help from the Inky) that they had mis-measured the dimensions of Citizen Bank Park, and was active in helping to apprehend and convict a noted internet criminal). Regarding the use of stats on the board and making baseball "dry"--that's a joke. We just want people who make assertions ("Bobby Abreu stinks") to support their position with some reasoned arguments, which, in baseball, often leads to the use of stats. The part of the stats FAQ posted in the article is an attempt to HELP users unfamiliar with sabermetric stats decipher posts from users who employ them, nothing more. --phillychuck again

Delete. nn website. Now I feel better. User:Zoe|(talk) 07:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

As you know, management weighed in when the site was two lines of joke material. In the baseball world, this site is very well respected as noted in PCs message above. joboggi

KEEP- you elitist snobs, there are some websites that are listed on here that if they are here so should this.

KEEP-DISCO STU
 * 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.