Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soccerpulse (2nd nomination)


 * 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. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Soccerpulse
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable website: no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and I am unable to find any. Previously deleted at AFD in 2006, and nothing seems to have changed since then to make it more notable. Robofish (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A poor article with WP:PUFF and WP:COI issues, but a pared-back version might be usuable. They seemed to have 10s of 1000s of users and have plenty of hits on google (which doesn't conver notability in and of itself, before anyone chirps in). The Daily Star and FourFourTwo satisfy WP:RS and they apparently present people from the forum as 'experts'.Eliteimp (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you seen the Daily Star reference? It's this: The mention of Soccerpulse there is trivial. I admit I haven't seen the FourFourTwo mention, but here's how the article describes it: 'A post by a Soccerpulse moderator, BlitzR, was published in the February 2008 issue of Four Four Two in an article on fans response to a top 100 players list the magazine had compiled'. That sounds like they published a letter by a member of the forum, not an article about it. That's not sufficient for WP:RS. Robofish (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You can say the references are not significant or trivial but they are national publications who deliberately sought out and printed the views of people from this forum. Presumably 'Barca4life's ramblings would not have made it into the Star, but for the authority bestowed by his affiliation with Soccerpulse. There's also no requirement for reliable sources to be entirely about the subject . Eliteimp (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  -- Tavix |  Talk  17:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- Tavix |  Talk  17:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - hundreds of football forums exist, I see no reason why this one is notable above those. GiantSnowman 21:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - The sources for this article may be reliable, but the coverage is too trivial, in my opinion, to pass WP:N. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I have seen nothing but trivial coverage of this forum. – PeeJay 15:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Forums are iffy issues. --MicroX (talk) 06:49, 23 June 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.