Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yardbarker

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), as per the affirmative consensus of this discussion.

Yardbarker

Yardbarker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This topic has been speedy deleted thrice as a CSD A7, no assertion of importance or significance. Following the third deletion and an inquiry by the editor, I'm bringing it here for community review. Does this topic meet

• Keep, by my reckoning the latest version meets both
  WP:Google Yardbarker produces 910,000 unique hits and 381 unique news hits from various notable newspapers, sports websites, sports channels, etc. So there is also interest in the page's subject. Gateman1997 (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Keep I'd like to see a few more reliable sources, article needs a serious clean up to removed the self published and unsourced content. Please note - popularity and search engine hits are not a criteria for notability. --neon white talk 20:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• True, but search engine hits do highlight interest in the topic separate from notability. Gateman1997 (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind, search engine hits are only a first, crude but very handy step towards finding out if a topic is covered by independent sources. Google's algorithms have nothing to do with Wikipedia's

notability policy, they're cleverly written to help users find whatever content they think they might be looking for (whatever it may be) and to give a "rank" to that content within what's available on the WWW, all whilst helping advertisers reach them. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Again true, that's not the only reason I'm voicing a keep however on this article. It does have notable verifiable sources and more can continue to be added to enhance the article. Gateman1997 (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep and rewrite - I guess it meets
  WP:COI, as the article's creator, User:Pelechati, appears to be an employee or a paid contributor to Yardbarker based on Googling "Pelechati" and "Yardbarker" (the user is also inserting references to Yardbarker in various athlete articles to a degree that is borderline linkspamming, but that's a topic for a different discussion). Mosmof (talk) 00:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually the current version was created by myself, not User:Pelechati. Gateman1997 (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Fair enough, I didn't compare diffs. Still, the current edit relies a lot on original research, and could really use a lot more 3rd party cites about Yardbarker in general, I think. As I said, I think it meets
      WP:N, but the article still needs some chopping and cutting, I think. --Mosmof (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Keep - sources establish notability. Wikidemo (talk) 03:25, 25 July 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.