- 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, with no prejudice against merging. Concerns about sourcing appear to have been addressed, and shortness of article is not grounds for deletion (though it may be for merging). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rotoworld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Article is non-notable and has very few g-hits that are reliable secondary sources. Also, it only links to two other pages, both of which are user/talk pages. Leonard(Bloom) 04:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Please tell me you're kidding. Rotoworld is frequently quoted by reliable news sources. The NY Times has 49 hits for Rotoworld. This is one of the best known sports web sites there is.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into NBC Universal as the Rotoworld article has only two sentences. There's not anything in the "article" indicating its significance; but should someone wish to expand it (with citations, of course) to explain what Rotoworld is, and so forth, it would be preferable to either a merge or a deletion. B.Wind (talk) 06:12, 11 July 2008 (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.