Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pie and Bovril


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 23:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Pie and Bovril

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I declined the speedy on this because I feel the claim of controversy = a claim of importance. However, I'm not finding notability for this forum. I found a couple of blog entries, a couple of podcasts, and that's about it. The BBC piece mentioned in the article won't load for me, so I have no idea how much it contributes towards notability. Fabrictramp |  talk to me  23:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason you will struggle to find articles based on it is mostly down to the fact that search engines prioritise the results based on activity. Since it is a forum (and an extremely popular one at that) most of the entries that appear do so from the site itself (since ultimately they are the most relevant).

The referenced link is to the Radio Show where Pie and Bovril Founder (David McDonald) was invited onto "Off the Ball" - broadcast on BBC Radio Scotland every Saturday before the day's fixtures take place. During this show, the phenomenon of football and the internet was discussed at length, and Pie and Bovril was used as the example of the most prominent site of this nature applying to Scottish Football.

The BBC also makes frequent reference to Pie and Bovril when searching for fans' opinions in their web search 3 minute piece in Sportscene Results, which is broadcast Scotlandwide as the alternative to "Final Score" for English leagues. Jonathan Sutherland, their Web Correspondent, mentions the site and its posters almost every week.

I understand that the article in its present form is relatively bare and thus it might be considered as insufficiently relevant. However, I believe that if you allow it to stay as it is now, it will make it much easier to flesh out the article with some research over the coming month or so by a number of contributors. I know of at least 2 other Pie and Bovril contributors who also extensively edit Wikipedia pages on the topic of Scottish Football, and would be well placed to ensure it maintains Encyclopaedic form.

I hope this persuades you. Redandyellowarmy (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Pie and Bovril is regularly referenced in the mainstream Scottish media - but you'll struggle to find those references in Google because most Scottish newspaper content is not archived on websites. If you have access to something like Datastarweb or Lexis Nexus to do a newspaper cuttings search you'll find a vast array of content. Jamie Beatson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.173.213.210 (talk) 09:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A website being referenced in a newspaper or some other medium does not make it notable, when said references are in the context of "what people are saying online" Marks87 (talk) 10:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non notable internet forum. Unable to find any coverage in independent reliable sources. Only mentions appear to be on other forums and blogs. wjemather bigissue 23:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Retain. Did you completely ignore the notable independent coverage from the BBC I cited?Redandyellowarmy (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Mentions in the media during sections dedicated to opinions from blogs and fora make it no more notable than any other blog out there Marks87 (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've heard Pie and Bovril mentioned plenty of times on the mainstream media in Scotland, including radio phone ins and of course Off the Ball. Given time I would expect this article to be brought up to the standard of an article such as Slashdot.  JieBie (talk) 10:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment -- the page is getting whacked by IP vandals, so I've semi-protected it for 24 hours.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  00:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable internet forum, also unable to find independent reliable sources Ace4545 (talk) 13:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Retain. Pie and Bovril has played an innovative and unique role in citizen journalism developments specifically within the sport genre. There is substantial evidence of this.TheEntomologist(talk) 14:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Where? (Without quoting the BBC, which in itself doesn't come close to "substantial evidence".) Marks87 (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment-- well my initial research threw up; http://www.pieandbovril.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=295&Itemid=490 and http://audioboo.fm/users/239/boos.atom and http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2009/03/24/audioboo-can-it-be-used-for-news-reporting-some-case-studies/ which are interesting I thought.TheEntomologist (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC) — TheEntomologist (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * So in order, we've got a post on the site itself, a couple of sentences mentioning P&B in another article, and a directory listing of posts. None of these satisfy Notability_(web).-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  17:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Fabrictramp's comment right above. De728631 (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Two seconds of Googling turned up this BBC reference, which is another mention on The Buzz, and this blog post which nonetheless ties back to the BBC and citizen journalism. I'm convinced that there are more sources available as it's easily the most well-known message board of its type in the country. Due to the nature of the keeps and in the interests of avoiding bite marks, it'd be a good idea to suggest userfying it to the author in the event that it is deleted so that work can continue on it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. A few bare mentions in the Scottish press does not amount to notability. The content in the controversies section is forum navel gazing. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:30, 1 December 2009 (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.