Talk:Profootballtalk.com

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The site is incredibly popular amongst general NFL fans and all related to the sport professionally - whether directly, players, coaches, NFL front offices, or indirectly, ESPN, Sports illustrated.

It has a major cult following and is becoming more popular than any of the pay-for media sites such as espn.com etc etc.

Contents 1 Article contains obvious bias 2 Agreed about being an advertisement 3 Biased article 4 soo... do you think it should be deleted? 5 keep it, but edit it 6 Delete this page 7 Notes on Deletion and Alternatives 8 All we know is that the site was released on November 1, 2001

[edit] Article contains obvious bias

This article reads like a commercial. The language used can only lead one to assume it was written by representatives of the web site itself. I suggest that an impartial third party help clean up this love fest.

Can we get the IP of the complainers and editors. It doesn't seem to be written as a favorable view of the site, but it does nail the overall format. The blog is more like an online radio show, and shows less "love" than the similar Jim Rome page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.143.66 (talk) 23:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agreed about being an advertisement

The page should be taken down since it is obviously an advertisment for the website. This will also continue with the tradition of deleting other football websites like TheHuddle.com. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jbgiunta (talk • contribs) 21:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Biased article

This article is little more than a commercial. I do not think it follows wiki's neutral point of view policy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.131.21.239 (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

soo... do you think it should be deleted? Enigmaman 21:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] soo... do you think it should be deleted?

Yeah, I think it should probably be deleted. Do you have any thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.131.21.239 (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Not sure. I think it's worthy of having a wikipedia page about the website, but maybe it can be edited for neutrality. Just my opinion. More experienced editors may have a better idea of what to do. Enigmaman 23:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a fan of the site, but this might as well have been written by Florio himself. I think this defintely needs to be edited to remove the bias because as this profile will tell you profootballtalk.com itself supports unbiased opinions.

[edit] keep it, but edit it

yes, its biased, but no ... it should not be deleted. It is however, no longer an advert as it was a couple months ago.

[edit] Delete this page

How do we add a poll for deletion??

[edit] Notes on Deletion and Alternatives

Good day! I've noted several people here expressing an interest in deleting this article. If you want, you can list it on WP:AFD. However, please note Wikipedia's Deletion Policy. Profootballtalk.com seems to pass WP:WEB, it just doesn't do a good job referencing it.

I'm going to take a stab at cleaning up the article. Any opinions and edits are welcome! -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 15:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Len Pasquarelli should have more important things to do than bust on a wiki page, and be a coward about his IP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.143.66 (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All we know is that the site was released on November 1, 2001

To say it was "created" on that date is to imply that the decision to do the site, acquiring the hosting, and developing and opening the site was on November 1. There is nothing to suggest that. All we know for sure is that it was opened/released to the public on that date--because that's the day the first news item was posted. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

if the site isn't available to be accessed, then it isn't created yet according to common lingo. Enigmaman 18:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for that, or is that just how you and your friends speak? Without anything indicating one usage is significantly more common than the other, I think it's best if we word it in the least ambiguous, the least strictly incorrect way possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmweber (talk • contribs) 15:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

my friends? This is how it's generally referred to by everyone I've seen mention on the Internet. None of these people are my friends. Enigmaman 21:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)