Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deadspin

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 speedy keep, no reason to delete given, no arguments for deletion. --Coredesat 06:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deadspin

Deadspin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

no reason given by Peakdetector (talk • contribs), orphaned entry linked by me. --Kjoonlee 02:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Easily the most popular sports humor site on the web. If hundreds of thousands of hits a day aren't enough evidence, I don't know what is. Usfcollin 02:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC) — Usfcollin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .
  • Keep. Ludicrous nomination for deletion. Probably just Dee Mirich getting her revenge. Barryap 22:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is no valid reason to delete it and its probably dee mirich or lucia doing this just to say HA!. Affirmed. Brent schneider 22:08 January 2007
  • Keep: One of the most popular, and most widely-influential, sports Web sites. Would be foolish not to have a listing. Dweeze 22:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC) — Dweeze (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .
  • Definitely Keep The people above me have said it all. Krobilla 22:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. For reasons above. Listed in numerous mainstream media outlets as popular and influential site. PeteJayhawk 22:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly a sour grapes effort. Both Deadspin and Will Leitch deserve entries. Once you've been in the New York Times you matter. Microbano 22:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC) — Microbano (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .
  • Speedy Keep Will Leitch, the author, is also up for deletion, but no reason given for either. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Beyond speedy keep zellin t / c 22:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This article may need cleanup, but certainly should not be deleted Dx87 22:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, and the nominator should be spanked hard for nominating this and several other related articles in bad faith. LastChanceToBe 23:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per above SUBWAYguy 23:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Deadspin receives thousands of viewers a day. The site has now entered into the sports information sphere. Wiki needs to continue the reference point. Vance23 00:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC) — Vance23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .
  • Keepzilla This user who nominated this article is acting in bad faith. If you look at his or hers user page, this is not the first time he or she has done this. BJ Humiston 00:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC) (Did someone edit my comment? I'm pretty sure I did not put "Keepzilla.") BJ Humiston 05:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Warp speed keep but also clean up and chop to pieces - Meets WP:WEB with articles in NYT, SI, one of Time magazine's 50 coolest websites. Ytny 01:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep and Close - ironically, kind of per nomination: no reason to delete. One is procedural - "no reason given" is not a reason to bring a page to AfD. Two, there is no reason to delete, as this site falls over itself proving notability and verifiability. Three, I'm calling WP:SNOW. --Dennisthe2 02:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Reviewed the nominator's talk page. I'm going to add on a bad faith nomination as a fourth reason. --Dennisthe2 02:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
      • For what it's worth, the user actually does give reasons in Talk:Deadspin:
This is a website known only to a select group of online subscibers and it's an insult to wikipedia. The editors are racist, sexist and lowbrow at least shorten the article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peakdetector (talk • contribs).
Time to delete or cut this way back, they have no relevancy to the sports world and are an example of internet site's seeking credence. The chart of their award winners is pointless-online and print magazines of far greater importance have much smaller or no articles. Deadspin staff have showed rabid contempt for the Barbaro article and are vandalizing it hourly. They need to take their own medicine.
Bad reasons, but reasons nonetheless. Ytny 02:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • That in mind, then, it reinforces my !vote at the very least. --Dennisthe2 03:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The real problem seems to be that Deadspin visitors might not be totally familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The Deadspin article and the Barbaro article have had some problematic edits which were probably added by Deadspin's visitors. --Kjoonlee 02:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I can't do it right now, but I see a lot of SPAs here, and they should be tagged as such, even though it's turning into a WP:SNOW. --Wooty Woot? contribs 04:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per everyone else. ;) Awartha 03:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Close already Someone close this already per WP:SNOW. John Reaves (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2007 (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.