Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takkle

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. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Takkle

Non-notable webforum. A db tag was downgraded to a prod, which was removed by the article's creator without explanation. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Though there are many GNews hits, they all seem to be from Sports Illustrated, which (although it is unquestionably a reliable source) according to the article had much to do with Takkle's creation. Besides, they all mention TAKKLE only in passing. Quantumobserver (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nine minutes after the first iteration went live, the page was inundated. Do you shoot newborns when they don't pass the SAT? Regardless, check alexa or quantcast as this obviously does substantial traffic. Point taken on need for further content, context, and links. It is editable, collaborative and evolving. Just asking the gleeful vultures to show just a bit more judgement before marching off to the guillotine. ChillPill77 (talk) 01:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC) — ChillPill77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: nothing happened nine minutes after article creation. Eleven minutes afterward, though, {{notability}}, {{uncategorized}}, and {{unreferenced}} tags were added, which call for help improving the article. None of them call for deletion, though the notability tag does mention the eventual possibility of later deletion. Quantumobserver (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are an awful lot of press releases to wade through in the Google news results. And their association with Sports Illustrated makes the coverage from SI and CNN falls hort of independent. But there is coverage in The Kansas City Star, Chicago Tribune, and sports Business Journal. I stopped combing the results after these three which should be sufficient to demonstrate that the independent coverage exists to satisfy notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'^mperator 21:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete RS above are just puff pieces and do not establish notability. Eusebeus (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the reliable sources provided appear to not directly cover the subject. Other sources I could find did not look especially independent. Fails WP:WEB, I believe. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:26, 11 June 2009 (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.