Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced NFL Stats

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced NFL Stats

Non-Notable Website. The article's sources are blog entries from respected News Papers, but do not talk about the website itself in great detail. Most of the sources only reference the website in the midst of a discussion. StarScream1007 ►Talk 15:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ changed to Keep While I might use it as a supplemental reference, or at least for research, I don't see the need for an article about it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if Strikehold says it's referenced lots of places, I will not oppose.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. This site is a useful and legitimate reference for academic style-sports research. Similar but less significant sites have full articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.42.171 (talk) 04:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficiently notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Cited as a source in the research of several reliable sources as noted by the nominator, including The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and the Houston Chronicle. I'd say delete if it were just cited once or twice in a small paper or even in any one of those aforementioned, but it appears to be viewed as a trusted source of information by several highly respected news orgs. Many other databases have articles, and many have survived deletion (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) which shows precedent. Also, the fact that the WSJ or NYT sources are "blogs" is not relevent; WP:Reliable sources says "otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story." Strikehold (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Trusted, active, and growing source of serious analysis of the most popular sport in the US. Current Alexa ranking reflects off-season interest. During the active NFL season, traffic rank is far higher.

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.