Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This Is Anfield

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Anfield

Non-notable The Referee (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. The Referee (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:WEB. No assertion on notability of website or verification of claims made. Fan sites are two-a-penny (especially for a big club like this), and I can't see why this site is more notable than any of the others.The Referee (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oooh, I'm getting deja vu here! Bettia (rawr!) 09:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources that show notability per WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This 2-year old Wikipedia page seems to be well-written and well-referenced. Claims that it is not notable do not appear to hold up. A search of media articles shows that it has been referenced by various publications internationally including BBC News and American newspapers. Nfitz (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it well referenced when there is only 3 sources in the article that doesn't show any notability? Those links that you provided doesn't show the site's WP:Notability. So it still doesn't meet WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article is well-referenced; period. Or at least well-referenced compared to the usual crap we see at AfD. This doesn't have anything to do with it being notable or not. Surely when major media outlets have over a several-year period been using the website in question as a source, then WP:CS dictates that there should be an entry here for it. Nfitz (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This article is still crap because notability matters on Wikipedia. The sources need to be reliable sources that shows notability instead of trivial mentions. Schuym1 (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - And all three links in the article go the official site. I don't see how that counts as well referenced. Schuym1 (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fair enough. How about better referenced than the average Wikipedia article. Nfitz (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No different in terms of notability from number of other fansites. Another one faced a similar scrutiny not so long ago. And in what sense is the article well sourced? Only primary sources are mentioned with no third party inclusion. The sources mentioned above merely mention the website and the BBC uses it as an external link. That doesn't satisfy WP:WEB. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 20:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Giant Snowman 22:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The two references in the article appear to be primary, and as a result do not meet the reliable sourcing guidelines. Nothign else in the article leads me to believe it is notable, so delete. Wizardman 03:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wouldn't say completely non-notable because I have heard it referenced on the BBC before. But alas, I don't think it needs an article here, it's not really wikipedia material. Govvy (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2008 (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.