Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports and Pop Culture Bank

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. Article's bare minium of sources do not meet WP:RS (a blog? Come on), therefore it fails WP:N. Language remains somewhat promotional ("premium", "mysterious") and article on founder of site was deleted. Most support votes came from single-purpose anon accounts, as well, greatly discounting them. Daniel Case 12:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Sports and Pop Culture Bank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

A Google search[1] suggests that this webzine is the subject of no non-trivial reliable external sources. Therefore it is impossible to write a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia article about it. See Wikipedia:Notability. De-prodded without comment. Pan Dan 12:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul M. Banks. Pan Dan 12:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.113.228 (talk • contribs) (note: this unexplained vote by an anonymous user should not count - Shalom ^Hello).
  • likewise for unexplained votes by non-anonymous users (just clarifying) Pan Dan 16:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It's an advertisement for the product. Shalom ^Hello 16:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep it is not an advertisement rather it is an explanation for the site and its creation and its main writers. See: Deadspin.com. Granted, Deadspin has been around longer and has been mentioned in more mainstream media, the layouts of the wikipedia article are the same. At what point does a description for a website stop being advertisement and start being background knowledge? Anderspc 16:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep (double vote struck The Evil Spartan 14:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)) why should unsigned votes not count and Shalom's vote should? That doesn't make any sense at all and is completely unjust. each vote counts, and Shalom's vote should count once. and only once. I am casting my one vote to keep it— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.113.228 (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • keep (double vote struck The Evil Spartan 14:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)) article has two neutral, verified and descriptive third party sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.113.228 (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • In answer to both of those comments, 1. Please do sign your comments using ~~~~. 2. You can stop your votestacking now because this is not a vote. This is a discussion to determine whether the topic meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. 3. Your comments are welcome, but what we really need are citations to reliable, 3rd-party, non-trivial sources that we can use to verify what's there or re-write the article. The sources in the article now are unreliable and trivial with respect to this webzine. Pan Dan 21:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• why are those sources unreliable and trivial? what exactly makes those other websites "trivial" and "unreliable?" where is this so-called line drawn? what websites would be "reliable" and "noteworthy" in your mind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.126.95.168 (talk • contribs)
  • Thank you for your question. To see what I mean by "reliable," please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. What I mean by "trivial" is that this webzine is only mentioned in passing in those sources. The idea is not to be exacting, it's just that there's got to be enough reliable source material on this webzine to write an encyclopedia article. Pan Dan 12:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonnotable website, no reliable sources. Note that User:Anderspc acknowledged in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul M. Banks that he is on the staff of the subject website, and User:216.80.113.228 is a single-purpose account that has only contributed (repeatedly) to this debate and the Paul M. Banks debate. NawlinWiki 12:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep webzine featured in this article contains a link on the about the site page with a downloadable audio file. this file which i listened to, featured an exclusive interview of the webzine's founder on ESPN radio in milwaukee. sounds like a very reliable and important source to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.240.104 (talk • contribs)

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.