Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yahoo! Fantasy Sports


 * 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. Clearly this article needs more work, otherwise I suspect it will come back here.Bduke (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yahoo! Fantasy Sports

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

Page is nothing more than a poor list with common sense facts, like 2003 was year#4 of fantasy baseball, and other than the poor list page only contains external links. I find it to be a useless page for Wikipedia. UWMSports (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This nomination smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Yahoo! Fantasy Sports seems to be a notable part of Yahoo!, and it's been covered by at least a few reliable sources which are cited in the article. Suggest using a cleanup tag (or similar tag) instead. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of I don't like it. The page is useless. You are telling me that list is useful? -UWMSports (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The site in question has had some significant news coverage, and at least a couple of the sources in the article itself are legit. Therefore, the subject is most likely notable, even if the page is mostly a big list right now. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Neutral It looks quite a bit like WP:SPAM at the moment (free site, pay site etc.) but that does not mean it can not be fixed. I will reserve judgement for the time being. Mstuczynski (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As TPH points out above, this page has received plenty of mainstream major coverage as one of the biggest fantasy sports pages around - anything that pulls in 5.1 million views in a month, as is quoted in this feature on TheStreet.com, is probably quite notable under our WP:WEB guidelines. I see articles specifically about this from a good number of sources. Having said that, none of those sources are in the article, which has been built from press releases and blogs. Notability says Keep, but cleanup is desperately needed. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * At its current state, I think it could be merged into a subsection under Yahoo. How about giving its main creators a week or so to clean it up or have it merged? It has some relevant sources, but they don't give all that much. -UWMSports (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The proposal is new. They have at least as much time as it takes to close it. Several days at the least the way it looks like it is going right now. Mstuczynski (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This nomination smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I think this is very informative, and I put alot of hard work finding sources. Also worth noting this person UWMSports has been editing for some reason articles I created for quite the span.. Drake Bulldogs basketball and Yahoo! Fantasy Sports for example. I edit, just thought that was also interesting. Special:Contributions/UWMSports  --Josh (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Only other article was Drake, and I happen to like that one alot. I just added an expansion tag for a one sentence preseason section. Yahoo needs significant work. I'll help you with it if need be. I brought it here because you kept reverting my edits so I figured this needed a third, fourth and fifth opinion. I don't have a personal vandetta against you. -UWMSports (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You say, "I brought it here because you kept reverting my edits so I figured this needed a third, fourth and fifth opinion." That is not the purpose of AFD. Our deletion process is not here to resolve content disputes or draw attention to low-quality articles. If you don't actually advocate deleting this article, I suggest you may want to withdraw this nomination. (I don't say this because I'm gung-ho about keeping the article, though I do think it's a notable subject.) szyslak  04:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 *  Keep  (numerous edit conflicts). I protested a prod on the article and I appreciate how User:UWMSports notified me about this AfD. I spent time cleaning up the "Key dates" section which had way too much information about each time a new season of a given fantasy sport started. There were many for fantasy football. I expanded the lead paragraph from several RS to include some statistics about Yahoo!'s large market share of the total fantasy sports market. The article could certainly use expansion especially about its pay service. It's hard to write about pay services without it sounding like promotion. The article should be kept because there are now statistics to show its notability and there are multiple reliable sources. I hope that others are encouraged by seeing this discussion to expand the article! Royal broil  20:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * change to Merge/Redirect to Yahoo! Sports. Limited content after spending enough time looking. Royal broil  01:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Reluctant keep - but only if it is cleaned up, and the cruft deleted. (The "Key Dates" section, for example, is of no encyclopedic value.) -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  20:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I had cleaned up the section, but User:SportsMasterESPN/Josh reverted them and actually expanded that too long section. I left a message on his talk page about the problem. Royal broil  20:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * He's been totally incoherent to my comments and apparently others as well. He is intent on simply reverting all constructive edits. See User_talk:SportsMasterESPN. I'm willing to drop this suggestion for deletion and help him form a good Yahoo Fantasy page if he is willing. But unfortunately, he has not replied and simply reverted all edits. -UWMSports (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I advocate for that section to include only the start dates for each program and an end date for any obsolete programs. For example, Fantasy Football's start date be listed as August 1998 with no other start dates for Fantasy Football - the start date for each year should be removed. A table listing each program and its start/end dates might be a better way to do what I'm suggesting. Royal broil  20:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep but clean up. Aardvarkvarkvark (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep in line with similar opinions above. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge. Note that Yahoo! Fantasy Sports isn't a separate Yahoo site like Yahoo! Answers or Yahoo! Finance; rather it's just a section of Yahoo! Sports. As such, a merge would be more appropriate.-- TBC !?!  20:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge or Delete. Belongs as a brief section under the Yahoo! article, because I don't think there is enough info to make anything more than a stub. I think the SportsMaster user needs to be cooperative in this effort otherwise I would go with deletion. Look at his history of reverts. -FancyMustard (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seems like an advertisement for Yahoo Fantasy. All the page is is links to different fantasy games, including ones you have to pay for. Seems very commercial to me. I'd say ax the page and make a quick mention of the Fantasy in the Yahoo page. -SlipperyPete411 (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Pete for pointing out the Yahoo Sports page, I say merge fantasy sports with sports. Both pages need alot of work and putting them together will help them out alot. -UWMSports (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into List of Yahoo!-owned sites and services, and then redirect. No need for its own (lengthy) article. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  14:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Very commercial, looks almost like spam. Udonknome (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. The article reads like an advertisement for the subject.  --InDeBiz1 (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems like merging is the current majority. Even Royalbroil, who has been very close to the situation has changed his thoughts from keep to merge after realizing there isn't enough to make a Yahoo Fantasy article look more than an advertisement. Those above who also said keep, said that on the condition that the article be cleaned up. The only strong keep was from the article writer, so he might have a COI. I think we should wrap this discussion up and merge Yahoo! Fantasy Sports into Yahoo! Sports. This will eliminate an entire page of advertising to Yahoo Fantasy, but keep the core history of its fantasy leagues within the general sports article. I think we can wrap the deletion discussion up me thinks! -UWMSports (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this article has some serious issues, but I still see absolutely no consensus. Strong keep, week keep, reluctant keep: they are all still keeps. That is also ignoring the deletes. Please try to be patient, if there is no concensus this will need people working to fix it. Mstuczynski (talk) 07:23, 4 March 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.