Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yahoo! Fantasy Sports (3rd 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   merge. The contents were effectively merged into Yahoo! Sports, and the article was redirected. This seems to be a solution which most think is acceptable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yahoo! Fantasy Sports
✅ Selective merge of material into the Yahoo! Sports article, per WP:BOLD. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC) AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - WP:NOT Wikipedia is not for sales catalogs. Look at the article and you'll clearly see that is what it appears to be. It is a blatent advertisement. Whether or not you feel Yahoo Fantasy is notable, I think we have a deeper issue here. Page has been requested for work for quite sometime now and no one has been able to upgrade it to wiki standards. It is unencyclopedic. [http://fantasysports.yahoo.com/moregames SEE: Yahoo! Fantasy Games Site], Also a bit of copying straight from Yahoo going on. Most of the article looks like just this webpage on Yahoo. At the very least page should be merged to Yahoo! Sports without section "Fantasy Games Offered". That's why I brought the article here. The only section in the article is a sales pitch. Thanks! GoHuskies9904 (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC) You couldn't have read my reason that fast. Please read it, article needs to be fixed, otherwise it will keep coming here. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per WP:NOTAGAIN. There are multiple reliable sources pertaining to this website. We've gone through this before.  Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I did read your reasoning. The subject is very notable indeed; I see plenty of reliable third party sources in a Google News search. Just because nobody's bothered to fix it is immaterial; you could always fix it yourself if you wanted. And if you think it could be better off merged (which I disagree with), you could have placed merge on it instead. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep (3 edit conflicts). We've been through this twice before. I slowly and carefully read your commentary before commenting as it took you some time to subst.  Royal broil  23:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the page and the site I provided. It is an advertisement. What if Nike decided to change their page to just their sales pitches? Nike is clearly notable. So do we keep it! Where do we draw the line. And Broil, you requested a merge before.-GoHuskies9904 (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, if you think it reads like an ad, you can fix the article yourself. It's not that hard. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Check the article's history; I helped write the article! I don't feel that it is advertising, or else I wouldn't have written what I contributed. Any article about a company could be cynically looked upon as advertising. I don't want it to be merged anymore. I've had time to think about it. I was offering a compromise earlier.  Royal broil  23:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Then fix it Royal. How come you've ignored it all these months? You said in the first discussion there was not enough material to pass it off as an acceptable stand alone article. You cannot simply say keep it cause you helped write it. That's a COI is it not? And of course any page can looked upon as advertising if you feel that way, but this page is like having the Nike page just listing all the different sneakers they are selling at the moment. -UWMSports (talk) 05:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, my reasoning for keeping is same as the last times. I see five independent reliable sources which verify its notability. I changed my comment to merge last time as an offering to compromise since it had been weaker on sources. That is no longer the case.  Royal broil  16:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Five sources yes, but five sources that only give about 9 sentences. Obviously they don't offer enough to give a full page article. The article has not been expanded by more than a sentence or two since you offered a merge. I'm still confused on how you could change your mind when you've offered nothing really to make a good article here. Right now, I think you may just have a conflict of interest with the material at hand since you helped create the page. Explain to me more why you think it can work. I would like to understand your points. This is not an attack, I'm curious to hear that's all. Now, I've offered a good compromise that greatly helps two pages. I will be WP:BOLD should this discussion receive a no consensus. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Articles can be expanded. Just because I haven't expanded it doesn't mean that other Wikipedians can't. I don't understand where you're coming from the way you keep putting words in my mouth . I offered a compromise and it was not accepted. Things went back to square 1 as if nothing happened. I am not under obligation to accept that same compromise in the future once it was not accepted. The article has changed significantly since I offered the compromise. A 9 sentence stub is enough to justify an article. An article need not achieve start class to be kept if the subject is notable enough, and my opinion is that it is notable enough. I added minimal information to the article, so my conflict is minimal. I did state earlier that I had edited the article, so the contributor who closes the article is aware.  Royal broil  18:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comentario - Mr. Broil, I am not putting words in your mouth. You're words were, change to Merge/Redirect to Yahoo! Sports. Limited content after spending enough time looking. Royalbroil 01:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC). So what have I missed? Other wikipedians have not improved the article since it was first brought up for nomination. It's your baby, you should have a big hand in improving it if there is a way. So far, no one has found a way! -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 02:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * DELETE - It has been that hard for those involved in these disputes. I looked at the link Husky provided and it clearly looks like the Wiki page in question. Clearly an advertisement. Just because its notable doesn't make it right. -UWMSports (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The Yahoo! link just has some bare stats which can be presented in a table. I don't think this is that blatant of an advertisement. And furthermore, everyone keeps forgetting ARTICLES CAN BE FIXED. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Then show some ways to fix it and I'll back down! -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, how about the tags already on the article? Merge, Cleanup, and Unencyclopedic seem to be your answer. Furthermore, it's usually considered bad form to list a page for deletion that has a merge tag on it. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That merge tag has been up there for months, but no one has done anything about it. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Maybe it should be removed then, I didn't realize that it was on there so long. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Secondary references demonstrate notability. We don't delete notable subjects because they could use some work.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge Immediately/Delete Definitely appears to be an advertisement. Even Hammer admits it does, by saying not that much. The material is notable, however. I say merge and make a table like Hammer says of the games they offer, so it doesn't eat up the entire page. But if our choice is to keep or delete here, I say delete. The nominator brings up a good point by saying we have to draw a line somewhere. We cannot allow notable companies to use their pages as open forums to sell their stuff. -FancyMustard (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The article does not list any real information that cannot put elsewhere. Even that would be less than a full paragraph suggesting the information is not worthy of its own page. Most of the article consists of a listing of every game offered by Yahoo Fantasy Sports (and minimal notes on gameplay), which someone could also access just by going to the Yahoo Fantasy Sports link. Up until I removed the links a month ago, the article was just a collection of links advertising Yahoo features. It is now a list in the same capacity. Neither meet Wikipedia standards. Transfer the important information to another article and delete this article. NeuGye (talk) 00:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep With around 2 6 weeks elapsing since the last AfD and relatively little changing in the content of the article since then, this should absolutely not be an issue again. Anybody dissatisfied with the current article is free to utilize other methods like rewriting or attaching appropriate maintenance templates. Erechtheus (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, this is a separate AfD from previous discussions. The last one was a no consensus. That does not automatically make the article immune from further scrutiny. If there have been three of these now, and little change to the article, then nobody is heeding the advice to change the article. Why was nothing done to make it better by those advocating we keep it and make it better? If you wish to make a case for the article being kept as is then please provide arguments relating to the article itself and not this process. If you wish to refute claims made by those wishing to delete the article, please do so with counterarguments that pertain to the article itself. This will help us decide what to do with the article as I am genuinely interested in valid arguments for the article and valid refutations of delete opinions. This was not intended soley for Erechtheus but all involved. NeuGye (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment You misrepresent the outcome of the last AfD. It was clearly a keep. There was absolutely no reason for this AfD to happen. Erechtheus (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My mistake. The first one was no consensus. Either way it does not mean the article immune to scrutiny. If the last AfD was all keeps, and this one is half and half, doesn't that show this needs to be a separate process. Maybe only like minded people took part last time. I have seen reasons to delete still standing and reasons for keeping refuted without readdress. Please tell me why we should keep the article, with arguments about the article, and refute my claims for deletion.NeuGye (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If there was a problem with the last process, the place to take that up is WP:DRV. I'm specifically not getting into the substance because I feel strongly that this AfD needs to be decided on the procedural grounds. It is emphatically not acceptable to re-nominate articles on a biweekly or even a monthly basis. Erechtheus (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not calling any past discussion into question. I am only pointing out that the verdict lies within the discussion. It has been different every time. Maybe we should examine the article logically and reach a real consensus that would not be challenged right away. If the article was acceptable and logical arguments prevailed in its favor, then these arguments would not rise again new here to an unchanged article. When you get it right these things don't happen this way. NeuGye (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment How could you not be questioning the prior discussion based on what you write above? You concede that this is essentially an unchanged article going through its third nomination, and you indicate that it's because the prior discussions weren't up to par. Erechtheus (talk) 02:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not questioning the process to the point of saying there was a problem. I am only pointing out that maybe the discussion could be more fruitful this time. I am interested in why this article should be saved, not how many people will say keep. NeuGye (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Clearly advertising! -Airtuna08 (talk) 00:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * keep has multiple non-trvial, independent reliable sources. Nominating it again so soon after the previous nomination is also not helpful. Consensus can change but there's no need to think it has. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It has four sources within five sentences all in the opening paragraph of the article. Does this excuse the rest? Can it even be expanded? Can the paragraph not go into another article? NeuGye (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are arguing for merging to somewhere else that is a distinct issue that can be dealt with on the article talk page. That's not a reason to AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not suggest a merge but a deletion. My reasons are already stated. The information in the article that is valuable could be placed elsewhere. NeuGye (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Placing it elsewhere is the definition of a merge. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally think the entire article should be scrapped. I am refuting the idea that it contains valuable information by saying that other articles could include this possible valuable information. There is no reason any information in the article needs to stay in this article. I suggest a deletion not a merge as previously stated. NeuGye (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, I think you are confused. You said "The information in the article that is valuable could be placed elsewhere" - that would mean that we would be merging the information from this article to wherever "elsewhere" is. (Also note that "refuting" requires actually giving a response not just declaring disagreement). JoshuaZ (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I assure you I am not confused. You might be reading my wording too much if you choose to quote it. Arguments here, including yours, allude to the idea that the information here is valuable. Indeed all who said keep has made the argument, in some form, that the information of the article is valuable and worth keeping in its present spot. I refute the idea presented that the article itself has any valuable information that needs to remain in the article. I do not care to keep the infomation in the article, and even if you said it was valuable you could not say it had to remain here in this article. NeuGye (talk) 01:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Those who feel the article should stay just because its notable are missing the point. I agree, Yahoo Fantasy is notable. I have fantasy baseball and football teams on Yahoo, but the site is patent advertising that no one has fixed in the 4-5 months this article has been under scrutiny. It continues to sit as free advertising for Yahoo. Believe me, they don't need it. There is NOT enough material to upgrade this page to Wiki standards. So again, while I propose a deletion, we should see a merge at the very least. And if there is a "no consensus" decision again, that wouldn't help matters. The page will just end up here again in the same condition two months from now. Look at the discussion from the first nomination. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 05:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep GoHuskies, if you think that the subject is notable, then how can you possibly argue for its deletion instead of cleanup or a merge? For this to show up on AfD again in a few months is a problem with such a nomination, not a problem with the article. Maxamegalon2000 06:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Again... it would be more helpful to defend the article rather than attack the process. Not everything notable needs it own article. If I want to know about Albacore I will look here. If I want to know about the internet company Yahoo I will look here. To find out what they offer I would hope the article includes a summary of features. To further explore the internet site, such as a list of games they offer, I should just visit that internet site rather than this one. Please defend this article with reasons other than the process and address the reasons for deletion. Otherwise this disscussion will be pointless —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeuGye (talk • contribs) 13:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Maxamegalon, look at the first subsection of the Yahoo! Fantasy Sports page because Huskies brought up a great point in his opening comment. "Fantasy Sports Offered", then it is followed by every game they have and whether its for free or for pay. That's a sales catalog as Huskies put it. There's a difference between saying Yahoo offers many different games and lining them all out with free or pay next to what they are. You've got to see that. Notability is nice, but Wiki cans things that are notable. Bios, Copyright violations, etc. So things superceed notability. And a clear violation of advertising on Wiki should superceed notability.-SlipperyPete411 (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I just took the two seconds needed to do away with the list that so many seem to find so controversial. Now the article is clearly not advertisement and is a full level above a two line, unreferenced article. It's about a notable topic, is verifiable, and has significant coverage in reliable sources. Unless we want to go down to an encyclopedia with 50,000 articles because we're going to change consensus to require more than what is presently there in this article, this needs to be kept both because this AfD is improper at this time and on the merits. Erechtheus (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Now you have a stub that no one has been able to expand. I do still think it should be deleted and I don't find it improper to bring an article that has had no improvement to another AfD. However, I'll drop the nomination to delete and compromise with a merger here if that will make something happen here to improve this situation. So, lets merge it as a compromise in a situation that will continue to be deadlocked if we simply go keep/delete. If the decision is "no consensus which it seems it will be, then this article will surely end up back here in a couple months. Now if someone in the future can come up with a great article for Yahoo! Fantasy Sports in their sandbox or something, then we can reassess the article standing on its own. But until then with the inability of people to create an article worthy of standing on its own lets merge it to Yahoo! Sports. Agree? Lets put an end to this madness! And I also think the merger would help the Yahoo! Sports page which leaves alot to be desired right now as well. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I like the deletion, but the article does not stand up as its own. Its a stub at best. If you look at the Fantasy Sports link in the box they link to the articles of parent companies like CBSSports and ESPN.com, not to a page on the games themselves. This is a feature of Yahoo Sports that could be noted in that article. The five or six sentences do not merit thier own article. NeuGye (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment What we now have is what I'd call a fat stub that is at the same or higher content level of likely hundreds of thousands of articles in the English language Wikipedia. There is too much verifiable detail for a merge. It would be better to have a more detailed article, but it's not a sin for this to remain at the level it's at forever. I think after 3 AfDs in ten weeks, a fourth nomination in much less than a year would look a lot like bad faith. Erechtheus (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like the list is back in again already. Lets address the article and not have a quick fix NeuGye (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It's back out now, with an explanation to the editor who apparently put it there as to why it's not appropriate content at this point. I understand that I'm new to this article and this has been going on for a little while, but it makes me wonder why those of you who have been hovering around it for a longer time haven't taken common sense steps like actually improving the article and building consensus. Erechtheus (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It is not bad faith when I'm showing willingness to compromise right now. Look at the Yahoo! Sports and Yahoo! Fantasy Sports pages and tell me they wouldn't be great together. Of course its not a sin to have a stub, but Wiki's goals are to improve those wherever possible. And merging the paragraph from Fantasy to the Sports page would do that. The Sports page is nothing more than a list of facts right now which Wiki hates. Put the two together and we have a half way decent article. Not great, but a definite improvement over what we have now. I also think having one central page increases the number of web browsers that will see both. People see the shape Yahoo! Sports is in now they aren't going to be intrigued to read any further. And again, those saying keep haven't really offered ways to expand the article in a constructive way.-GoHuskies9904 (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Merging does not require AfD -- it simply requires consensus building (which pretty apparently has not been attempted) and a bold change to move content and create a redirect once there is clearly a consensus. Maybe there should be a merge, but that's not really what we should be deciding here. This article is good enough to stay around in its current form. It doesn't advertise. This should be a keep, and effort to get a consensus behind a merge should be made. Erechtheus (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Its a compromise. I feel it should be deleted, hence why its here. So telling me I shouldn't have brought it here is irrelevant. I'm trying to compromise now because this argument is going no where. Merging is something we can do to end this disagreement which I think all of us want and to keep this page from ending up here again. A "no consensus" would just buy the article a couple months if not improved. I hope if that's the case I'm proven wrong and it is improved, but I just don't see that happening. Those close to the article such as RoyalBroil and SportsMaster have been unable to expand the article in the proper Wikipedian way. Even RoyalBroil in the first discussion changed his opinion to merge because he felt there was not enough material to build a constructive page. A merger here helps two pages you call barely passible become better. Just because other stubs exist doesn't mean this one should. We try to improve every which way possible. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Huskies. A merger would improve both articles. A good compromise to end the gridlock we have here. The material would stay which would satisfy those who say keep, and the deletion of the advertising list that would satisfy those who say delete. I also agree with Huskies. If someone puts together a fantastic article that warrants being on its own, we'll will re-investigate this issue. I'm not opposed to the page ever coming back, it just needs to come back in a constructive way.-UWMSports (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with NeuGye. If everything notable deserves its own article, there will be millions of crummy one-two line articles. This article should not stand alone. I brought it here for deletion because it is clearly an advertisement. That is a clear violation of Wiki policy. If everyone would take a look and read through the article and compare it to the website I provided from Yahoo you'd see that. Those who say keep, how about a proposal on how to clean up and fix the article? RoyalBroil, who is close to the situation, said there was not enough info to have a stand alone article for Yahoo! Fantasy Sports. Look I'm all for the lead being re-written into Yahoo! Sports, but that merger tag has been up there for months and no one has done anything about it. And I really believe the page warrants an AfD because of its advertising style. IT IS NOT Wikipedia standards. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Users have admitted there is nothing that can be done to fix this page to make it a quality wiki article. I realize thousands of crummy articles exist on Wikipedia, but that isn't an excuse to keep this one. But isn't Other Crap Exists an unacceptable reason to keep something. Where do we draw the line? Pages like this one are reasons why people frown upon Wikipedia. -SlipperyPete411 (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * He'd be refering to this, WP:OTHERSTUFF -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I have now reordered some of the information in the article, breaking it into three paragraphs. I also added some information from an article about market share. Erechtheus (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Three one-two sentence paragraphs. Its a nice effort, but not much change. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree. The few things in it do not justify its own article. If you insist the information needs to remain on Wikipedia, then it is clearly a part of the larger Yahoo Sports, or even the Yahoo article itself. Just because many other people do not request deletion for stub articles that could be removed doesn't mean this one should stay. Why should it stay in this article in this form? NeuGye (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge After reading through the endless diatribe that is this page, I agree with the compromise of a merger. Fantasy Sports is notable hence it should stay somewhere on Wikipedia, but I don't find it notable enough to have its own page. I use AOL Instant Messenger as an example. It has many different features. Such as talk, direct connect, send files, etc. which are all very notable for those teenie boppers that use those features. However, they should stay under the AOL Instant Messenger umbrella and not each have their own page. Yahoo! Fantasy Sports is a feature on Yahoo! Sports. Merge the pages together and you have yourself a hell of an article. -SamEarlson030578 (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Seems like the merger is getting great support as a compromise. I think this discussion should be kept open another couple days to get more opinion since it hasn't been clear cut. But I think the merger is the best way to put this issue to bed. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Adding to the endless diatribe that some must feel compelled to read, I too think a merge might work as a comprimise, as long as we merge the info and not the list. NeuGye (talk) 02:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Definitely no list! -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 05:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Already redirected and should be closed ...  RGTraynor  15:38, 9 May 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.