Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports and Pop Culture Bank
- Sports and Pop Culture Bank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
A Google search[1] suggests that this webzine is the subject of no non-trivial reliable external sources. Therefore it is impossible to write a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia article about it. See Wikipedia:Notability. De-prodded without comment. Pan Dan 12:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul M. Banks. Pan Dan 12:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- KEEP— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.113.228 (talk • contribs) (note: this unexplained vote by an anonymous user should not count - Shalom Hello).
- likewise for unexplained votes by non-anonymous users (just clarifying) Pan Dan 16:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. It's an advertisement for the product. Shalom Hello 16:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- keep it is not an advertisement rather it is an explanation for the site and its creation and its main writers. See: Deadspin.com. Granted, Deadspin has been around longer and has been mentioned in more mainstream media, the layouts of the wikipedia article are the same. At what point does a description for a website stop being advertisement and start being background knowledge? Anderspc 16:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- keep why should unsigned votes not count and Shalom's vote should? That doesn't make any sense at all and is completely unjust. each vote counts, and Shalom's vote should count once. and only once. I am casting my one vote to keep it— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.113.228 (talk • contribs)
- keep article has two neutral, verified and descriptive third party sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.113.228 (talk • contribs)
- In answer to both of those comments, 1. Please do sign your comments using ~~~~. 2. You can stop your votestacking now because this is not a vote. This is a discussion to determine whether the topic meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. 3. Your comments are welcome, but what we really need are citations to reliable, 3rd-party, non-trivial sources that we can use to verify what's there or re-write the article. The sources in the article now are unreliable and trivial with respect to this webzine. Pan Dan 21:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)