Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DatabaseSports.com

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Naconkantari 20:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DatabaseSports.com

DatabaseSports.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

no external Google hits for "DatabaseSports" or "DatabaseSports.com", references are all to materials created by the site itself (except an assertion that Sports Illustrated commented on it, cited by a link back to databasesports.com itself. Prod is contested on the talk page, so I removed the tag and an moving it to AfD. Geoffrey Spear 16:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more but go to the article's talk page for discussion. Quadzilla99 16:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
No, this is how we do deletion discussions, not "go to the article's talk page". Especially since you refuse to discuss there until an admin comes. -Amarkov blahedits 16:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok this is what is on the talk page:
"::Let me just state my case then and we'll leave it for actual admins as opposed to imaginary ones and end the bickering. If I acquire any further information I'll post it later:
1) databaseSports.com is referred to in more than 10 thousand Wikipedia pages. Pretty much every single athlete has a link in their template or Wikipedia page to a branch site of databaseSports.com as a source to provide their career statistics, such as databaseFootball.com[1], databaseBasketball.com[2], basketball-reference.com[3], databaseHockey.com[4], and baseball-reference.com[5]. It seems incongruos to refer to the site in almost every single page about an athlete then not have a page giving the history of the site.
2)The site Alexa does not list unique users or page views per month and databaseSports.com includes about 10 branch sites which are listed individually on Alexa.
3)Sports Illustrated did rave about them, however I didn't save the issue so I have no way to site the actual issue. Also the wording in the article says "according to their website" so pointing that out is pointless.
"DatabaseSports" and "DatabaseSports.com" searches don't return a single Google hit from sites not owned by this company. Assertion that you saw something in a credible source you're not able to cite doesn't meet WP:V by a longshot. Geoffrey Spear 15:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
We need to get some actual admins in on this, when they arrive as I stated I'll continue the dicussion further. Quadzilla99 16:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I will make one further note: any site listed in point 1 above is in reality databaseSports.com. So referring to databaseSports.com alone is false and misleading it includes all the sites as a visit to the site will explain also baseball-Reference.com is being converted to databasebaseball.com. As I also mentioned almost every single athlete in Wikipedia is linked to a databaseSports.com site in the athlete's template. Also I don't use bold lettering, cap letters or extra exclamation points or question marks in my arguments so if you wish to imagine any portion of my statements in that way please do so. Quadzilla99 16:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)"Quadzilla99 16:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm satisfied that notability is established, but it still needs reliable sources. -Amarkov blahedits 16:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it is referred to throughout Wikipedia I didn't add the links to all of it's branch sites in the athletes pages myself, so apparently a great many Wikipedians are aware of it and it's branch sites. Quadzilla99 16:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • ...which doesn't even establish notability. Notice the lack of Willy on wheels. -Amarkov blahedits 16:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
      • It's strange to refer to a page ten thousand or so times in Wiki then act like it doesn't exist or explain what it is.Quadzilla99 16:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
      • In addition if it's non-notable does that mean all those sources should be removed? Not being sarcastic just asking. Quadzilla99 16:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
        • No it isn't, not if we're building an encyclopedia. WP:V trumps any concern of strangeness, and WP:V requires reliable sources. And being non-notable doesn't mean we can't use it as a source, we just can't have an article on it. -Amarkov blahedits 16:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
        • No, a reference on a Wikipedia page can be to a website not deemed notable enough for an article of its own. For instance, my website, www.fchd.info is linked to on hundreds of pages about English & Welsh football clubs - it even has its own template for making links to it. Yet, I fully acknowledge my site is some way from meeting WP:WEB. While I'm here, unfortunately I don't see how this site meets WP:WEB either. so Delete. - fchd 18:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete we need verifiable sources to classify it as notable. Harvey100 17:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The Sports Illustrated article in question is in the March 27, 2006 issue. It's titled "Welcome Sites in the Vast Wasteland of the Net," and it is written by Adam Duerson. (You can find it on Factiva.) However, the only thing the article says about these particular sites is that each one "is a comprehensive source with Britannica-like accuracy." That's it -- just a blurb in a list, basically. A handful of other newspaper and magazine articles use the Database sites as sources, but I'm not sure there's enough here to pass WP:WEB. (And I'm an inclusionist who actually uses these sites on a regular basis.) Zagalejo 18:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Bigtop 23:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I use these sites (databasebasketball, etc.) constantly- apparently, I'm the only one. -- Kicking222 02:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kicking 22.DGG 02:50, 25 December 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.