Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dugout

: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. Tone 19:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

=[[The Dugout]]=

:{{la|The Dugout}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|The Dugout}})

This page cites no reliable sources. I see nothing that would make this website be considered notable; per GNG, there's no significant independent coverage in reliable sources. The contents of the site, represented as "parody", can border on attack or libel, and thus this should be deleted. — KV5 • Talk • 21:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as a non-notable website; I can find no sources whatsoever which mention this website. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete Fails WP:WEB and WP:GNG, lacking significant, independent coverage from multiple reliable sources.—Bagumba (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete It's a funny light-hearted parody site, but I don't think there's anything to satisfy WP:WEB or WP:GNG. I think the whole claim of it being a libelous attack site is taking it more than bit far, though. That'd be like saying Saturday Night Live is filled with nothing but libelous lies or some other nonsense. Just delete it, don't curbstomp the parody site as some sort of evil libelous attack site. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 01:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I wasn't trying to say that the contents of the site were libel, but rather that our reporting only certain elements which are untrue and cast aspersions on players' character could be construed as such. Perhaps I was unclear. — KV5 • Talk • 22:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I removed the speedy deletion tag that ItsZippy added. I was able to find [http://www.gelfmagazine.com/archives/baseballs_unofficial_chat_room.php this article] in Gelf Magazine, there's a mention in the Village Voice [http://blogs.villagevoice.com/music/columns/ivoice/ here], and the Wall Street Journal has mentioned the website (and linked to it) multiple times including [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118494289662273076.html?mod=googlewsj here], [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119315711528468509.html?mod=googlewsj here], and [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117820319111390940.html?mod=googlewsj here] for example. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • :Thanks for pointing out the sources. The Village Voice and WSJ is trvial per WP:WEB: "a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site." Would need more sources on par with Gelf.—Bagumba (talk) 04:49, 7 November 2011 (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.