Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BostonDirtDogs.com
- 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 no consensus. W.marsh 15:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A failure of WP:WEB. Mike 17:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails to assert notability. Feel free to speedy it when CSD A7 is expanded. MER-C 12:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep per criteria #3 of WP:WEB. The content is distributed via Boston.com, the online site for the Boston Globe. (that transaction received enough press coverage alone to indicate notability) It is still an independent site, however. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article." So says WP:WEB, which is not a formal policy to begin with. SliceNYC 22:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notability is in its distribution by the Globe. SirFozzie 19:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is no assertion made of notability other than its affiliation with Boston.com and that some minor, nn online sportswriter contributes to it. NoMaas is its Yankees equivalent and it would probably get speedied -- the only difference is team and publisher. It's also worth noting that Boston.com is not the same thing as the Boston Globe, and neither are involved in the production of what Boston.com calls a fansite. [1] Basically, Boston.com acts more like Geocities than a newspaper's site in this case. SliceNYC 22:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Vastly incorrect. Boston.com actually acquired BostonDirtDogs, and pays the maintainer. And Boston.Com is the Boston Globe. [Here's a story about the acquisition] In fact, if you take a look at the Boston Globe entry here on Wiki, down at the bottom is says: "Official Site: Boston.com". I assumes your WP:N concerns, SliceNYC? SirFozzie 23:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As a daily visitor to Boston.com I've always been under the impression that the site and the Globe are separate entities with the same ownership -- that Boston.com has the exclusive rights to publish online Globe content, but it's not the Globe website like nytimes.com is for the Times. Boston.com's slogan is "your connection to the Boston Globe" (as in, Boston.com is a third party) and there is a distinct difference between the sections that appear in the newspaper and general content (travel, real estate, some A&E). Either way, we're probably getting off-topic in hashing out trivial details. My question stands: is the site notable beyond its connections (whatever they may be)? Remember the guidelines on WP:WEB -- even if BDD is distributed by a major site, that does not automatically confer notability on it (otherwise, we'd have a page for every Boston.com message board.) SliceNYC 01:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if you go to bostonglobe.com, it takes you right to boston.com and the paper's logo is right there. Apparently, breaking news and updated stories are available on that site.. I did remark on how the parent company of the Globe (the NY Times) is the 2nd largest shareholder in the Sox, which led to some interesting discussion about the site's editorial independence. You're right that we're quibbling over small details, but I still strongly believe that it satisfies WP:N and WP:WEB as the article now stands SirFozzie 02:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, WP:WEB #3: "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.[7]" BDD has, for the most part, complete autonomy from the Globe/Boston.com, meets it easily. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As a daily visitor to Boston.com I've always been under the impression that the site and the Globe are separate entities with the same ownership -- that Boston.com has the exclusive rights to publish online Globe content, but it's not the Globe website like nytimes.com is for the Times. Boston.com's slogan is "your connection to the Boston Globe" (as in, Boston.com is a third party) and there is a distinct difference between the sections that appear in the newspaper and general content (travel, real estate, some A&E). Either way, we're probably getting off-topic in hashing out trivial details. My question stands: is the site notable beyond its connections (whatever they may be)? Remember the guidelines on WP:WEB -- even if BDD is distributed by a major site, that does not automatically confer notability on it (otherwise, we'd have a page for every Boston.com message board.) SliceNYC 01:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep,
and if unable to expand past stub size, merge to Boston.com or Boston Globe. It's real and notable, but may not merit an independent article. Alba 00:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Keep per expansion. It's now a Start-class article. Alba 02:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please check the article. I greatly expanded it with the history, and some notable controversies ((You should hear the sports writers around here when this guy is mentioned.. You can hear their teeth grind about how he got successful, cuz he doesn't do things the way the sports writers consider the "Traditional" way. Makes for some fun talk radio sometimes. SirFozzie 02:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well-done. Putting aside the whole Globe/Boston.com issue for now, the article sufficiently asserts a surprising amount of notability for a fansite. There are proably a wealth of WP:RS commenting on the site and the business dealings, so some more sourcing might be in order, but that's a cleanup issue, not a deletion issue. I'm willing to stand down on this one. (Although maybe it's just a Yankee fan feeling sympathetic for fans of a 3rd-place team.) SliceNYC 02:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ((makes note that WP:AGF doesn't apply to Yankee fans. (kidding, good luck in the playoffs) SirFozzie 03:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well-done. Putting aside the whole Globe/Boston.com issue for now, the article sufficiently asserts a surprising amount of notability for a fansite. There are proably a wealth of WP:RS commenting on the site and the business dealings, so some more sourcing might be in order, but that's a cleanup issue, not a deletion issue. I'm willing to stand down on this one. (Although maybe it's just a Yankee fan feeling sympathetic for fans of a 3rd-place team.) SliceNYC 02:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Peter Gammons called it a daily read in one of his MLB.com chats ([2]), it's distributed by the Boston Globe, the lead character wore a Dirt Dogs shirt in Fever Pitch, etc etc etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Did this slip through without consensus, can it be closed as a keep? SirFozzie 15:18, 5 October 2006 (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.