Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ClutchFans

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 Keep - Yomangani^talk 10:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ClutchFans

Asserts notability (and Alexa rank is 23,655, not too terrible), but only source is a broken link to the Sports Illustrated website. NawlinWiki 00:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The link has been fixed. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 00:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete. It has been mentioned before by Sports Illustrated, but other than that I couldn't find any other non-trivial published works.--TBCΦtalk? 03:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Needs some work, but it seems to (barely) pass WP:WEB. --Transfinite 03:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Question If I need to fill this page up, should the sources be from outside the particular website I'm writing about (Clutchfans) or is it alright to put information from the site itself (for instance, from the 'About Us' Section on Clutchfans)Brantonli 07:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Answer Sources independant of the subject are always prefereble, look for such things as news sites, which are known to be the best sources. Also look for reputable sources, maning, no blogs basically :-) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Question What if the source is from an article on the said website, but that article is citing a major sports article? Like this: [[1]] It's on a SI article that writes about ClutchCity (as it was known a couple of years ago).Brantonli 17:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Wait Multiple sources evidencing notability are required, but given the strong mention in the Sports Illustrated article, the age of the site, and the modest nature of the present article, it's not unreasonable to believe that additional sources may be forthcoming, and to allow a little time for them to be produced. --Shirahadasha 04:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and review in one month per Shirahadasha and assurances of author Brantonli. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 05:42, 30 October 2006 (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.