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. Clearly not notable, or not yet notable, by our usual standards. What we mean by notability may be a rather specialized use of the term, but it does have an established meaning here. DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FreeSportsBet.com[edit]

FreeSportsBet.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has been deleted three times for lack of notability. Still not providing sufficient evidence of it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Please note that notability is not determined by the "arguments presented in [the] article" because notability is a property of the topic, not the article, so is independent of how well the article is currently written. Notability refers to the existence of sources that could be used to write a good article. Dricherby (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quite, but the author is clearly aware of the need for notability and so stuffed the arguments about notability into the article and still failed to meet it. If their arguments in the article had been in line with WP:N (logically implying the article would meet with WP:N) then we'd be cleaning it up - not deleting it on WP:N grounds. -Rushyo Talk 13:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability comes only from coverage in reliable sources: please see WP:GNG. Dricherby (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the article, I did include a notable source that published a report on the company. WDuBose (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, the editor who created FreeSportsBet.com has learned a little bit from previous exeriences in having the article CSD'd A7 and G11, because the article starts off with two claims for notability, and not the promotional language I remember from the last time I saw this.
There are two related articles: Centsports and FreeSportsBet.com. They are related because FreeSportsBet.com recently took over Centsports. If it is decided that Wikipedia should have content about these entities, I would merge the info into one article. So let's look at sources from both articles together:
Dead link, WordPress, "Speakeasy is a student-run, alternative Web magazine serving the Ohio University campus in Athens, Ohio.", not significant enough to contribute toward WP:GNG, probably fails WP:RS altogether
The source http://www.thefastertimes.com/about-us/ appears WP:RS legit, it has an editorial board run by an experienced journalist
However the "article" by Mark Donatiello, staff reporter, looks more like a personal blog post than a news article, looks slightly better than Speakeasy but still not good enough to contribute toward WP:GNG
Doesn't mention either FreeSportsBet.com or Centsports by name
Legit, whole article dedicated to discussion of Centsports.com, contributes toward WP:GNG
WP:SPS
Looking for other sources, I found:
FreeSportsBet.com mentioned as winner of crowd-favorite vote, could easily be the subject of ballot-box stuffing, I don't give this much weight toward WP:GNG
  • Plenty of blog and forum mentions but that's probably only indicative of a healthy advertising campaign, none of it contributes toward WP:GNG
  • Nothing else
Zad68 19:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do " blog and forum mentions " not give it notability/credibility? At some level this is notability as it is a unbiased opinion good or bad from a userbase of members that have joined the website or have questions about the website. Also "blog and forum mentions but that's probably only indicative of a healthy advertising campaign" is purely judgement or speculation on your part & should have no bearing on wether the article would or wouldn't be approved. I would prefer to deal with facts & that goes for this comment also " FreeSportsBet.com mentioned as winner of crowd-favorite vote, could easily be the subject of ballot-box stuffing, I don't give this much weight " again this is purely one person's opinion & has been mentioned with no facts to support his/her claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnhj214 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC) — Tnhj214 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hi Tnhj214, welcome to Wikipedia. I see that you just registered within the last hour and your first and only edit has been to contest this WP:AFD. To answer your questions:
  • Question How do " blog and forum mentions " not give it notability/credibility?
  • Answer: Because that is exactly what the Wikipedia general notability guideline says. From WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list," and under reliable sources we find, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." (emphasis mine). So, in general we do not count blog or forum postings toward meeting WP:GNG.
  • Question "FreeSportsBet.com mentioned as winner of crowd-favorite vote, could easily be the subject of ballot-box stuffing, I don't give this much weight" ... is purely one person's opinion
  • Answer: This is also covered at WP:RS under WP:USERGENERATED: "largely not acceptable ... includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database, Cracked.com, CBDB.com, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users." For this reason, being voted a crowd-favorite--a user-sourced result--is not acceptable toward meeting WP:GNG.
If you're interested in helping the Wikipedia community to build a general encyclopeda, please read through the notability policy, which is vitally important to understand and apply correctly when building articles. Zad68 16:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zad68 Yes, I have registered in the last hour thanks for pointing out that info as it pertains to this article. I know that there is no way a person could sign up in the last hour & possibly be knowledgeable on the subject. Who says who is reliable & who is isn't? So forum/blog poster can't be reliable? So if Warren Buffet makes a post about FreeSportsBet does that make it notable/credible? What makes someone credible? To me that is in the eye of the beholder & is very subjective & I would rather not group ALL forum & blog posts into not notable. Also we aren't claiming to be a expert or that the user based content on the web is a expert opinion. We are looking for informative information about FreeSportsBet. I think the 300K users that belong to the FSB community make this notable/credible site & something to be recognized & talked as it is the only free sports betting site of it's kind. To me that makes it very notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnhj214 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I may be new to Wikipedia but I am not new to this discussion or topic. I have read your posts & links you have provided & I am still unclear on "notable" as it is extremely vague & lack specifics. It seems this is very objective to Wikipedia & is on a per bases criteria. The fact is we have done everything we/I have been asked & FSB has done everything it has been told to do regarding this, provide links of notable sources, explain our/there situation and why we feel we belong within Wikipedia. This site is very unique & it provides something we/I feel would be very useful to Wikipedia. At the end of the day it is up to you wether you would like to move forward & except our article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnhj214 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All I can point out is that 6 experienced Wikipedia editors here all unanimously agree that the sourcing found does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, and are not making comments that the Wikipedia guidelines regarding notability are too vague, lacking in specifics or are too subjective when it comes to reviewing the sources for the subject of this article. Try editing some other articles, talk to other editors at the Teahouse, you'll get the hang of it. Zad68 21:24, 30 May 2012 (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.
More