Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barstool Sports (3rd nomination)

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barstool Sports

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable website lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nearly all of the cited references seem to provide considerable non-trivial coverage of the subject in independent published reliable sources. Perhaps it's not sufficient coverage to establish notability, but I strongly disagree with the nominator that it doesn't exist. While the lede introduces the subject as being about the blog alone, I am conflating the company, its blog, and its non-blog activities as a single subject; some coverage is about the company's parties more than the blog. ––Agyle (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm undecided but there is a bit of coverage for the site. It's all coverage about the guys being asses, but it is coverage in reliable sources. What we need to decide is whether this shows a depth of coverage, since a lot of it is based predominantly in the Boston area. I'm leaning towards a keep offhand, but this will probably need some cleaning to make it flow a bit more. I'll see what I can do. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned the article. Some portions of it seemed a little WP:POINT-y, but in which direction I can't honestly say. It kind of reads like people from both sides of the argument had a go at this. Hopefully it should read a little better now. I haven't removed any sources from the article, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly not trivial and given its consistent mentions in major media outlets as well as the ongoing clean-up, I think it is a definite keep. Perhaps an expansion mentioning its video series/youtube channel would be beneficial - some have over 1 million views.TheWarOfArt (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 21:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My understanding is that it is a very well known website in the American sports world. Has built a reputation as a controversial and irreverent site. Examples of in-depth coverage of site include: [1], [2], [3] and so on. Meets WP:GNG and WP:WEB fairly convincingly, IMHO. mikeman67 (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2014 (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.