Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro-Football-Reference.com

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. (non-admin closure) I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 06:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Football-Reference.com[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

promotional, can't find any RS that establish independent notability. Alexa rank doesn't cut it for RS. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 23:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep please complete steps in WP:BEFORE, or at least click on the "news" link next time. I've added links in the article with a few of the many references found: Bloomberg Businessweek, ESPN, New York Times, and Forbes. Plus, with over 250 articles in Wikipedia that link to this page it should be worth keeping because of its reference value.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One of the really basic sports stats sites. Passes GNG through sources showing, I believe. Carrite (talk) 04:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to that policy? I'm unfamiliar with that rationale. here or on my talk page is fine. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 05:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are seeking what is called the General Notability Guideline which is often abbreviated WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think i was just a little confused at the "by sources showing" construction. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 13:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. As Carrite says, this is one of the most significant sports info sources. Sufficient sources now shown to pass GNG. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I do find it a bit odd (and i've encountered this before) that my searches on google and google news don't turn up anything that i would recognize as significant (some ads, that's about it), but the links that get put up when I nominated this did. But that's another noticeboard. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 13:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may be the difference between searching http://www.google.com/ and http://news.google.com/ ... worth considering.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of secondary source discussion. — Cirt (talk) 03:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Combine This website does not seem to be anything more than contents aggregation with a lot of front-end links and thrive on search engine exposure. If you look at [1] this page, it looks pretty obvious just source data and upload them. I would just put everything under "SPORTS REFERENCE LLC", then re-direct over there and give it a paragraph or two that describe what the site does and cut out huff puff. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose merge In this case the articles are more functional separately. There are a large number of citation links from other articles to the other pages that each warrants its own page, much like multiple publications from the same publisher may warrant multiple pages. One page for the publisher, one for each notable publication.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.