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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Footytube[edit]

Footytube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Does not appear to have been covered in any detail in any reliable secondary sources. Does not seem to meet WP:N. Leivick (talk) 02:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to wikipedia and this is my first article. I believe that pretty much everything in the article had been referenced well from sources on the internet - I used Quantcast and Alexa for the site stats and linked.in and the about page to get the staff data. There are references to The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph, two reputable sources that mention the site (the latter having included the site in their Top 25 football websites of 2009, where it came 16th on the list). The trivia perhaps needs some work - I got this mostly from the forums on the site; having spent the last 2 years as a member I am pretty knowledgeable on the behind the scenes stuff there. Any advice you can give as to how I can improve these references would be most appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charliebaudry (talk • contribs) 04:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 23:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While it could do with a spot of tidying up, the article seems well-sourced and the third-party references indicate some degree of notability. There also seems to be plenty of regular news hits too. Bettia (talk) 10:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The sourcing isn't great as many come from the site itself, but there are seven independent references of which four seem to be reliable. For me that's enough for WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - needs a clean up as Bettia says, but it looks to meet notability guidelines. GiantSnowman 15:59, 28 May 2010 (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.