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, nominator now no longer wants deletion and there are no other delete opinions. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centsports[edit]

Centsports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I originally mistakenly deleted this as an A7, no assertion of notability. An editor drew my attention to a link to a Forbes.com article about the subject, which serves as the sole claim to notability. This site has an Alexa ration in the 8,000s. Most of the results for the site that I found while Googling appear to be advertisements. WP:NOTABLE states that if a news item is used to establish notability, it requires "Significant coverage" and "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability". If this is a real site that meets WP:WEB, then addressing these should be trivial. CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm sure more coverage can be found. Forbes is not the only site to write about Centsports This is notable for its being one of the only legal gambling alternatives in the US. Its traffic is fairly significant. Enigma ^message 20:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep They meet WP:WEB. I'm not sure about the criteria nom mentions (WP:NOBJ). This doesn't seem to be the sort of news event/topic to which that criteria refers. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm persuaded by the above rationales. No objection to keeping the article, suggest closing admin note this discussion in the talk page to help avoid future speedy deletions. Maybe something about the subject just didn't smell right and I leaned towards deletion too hastily. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quarrel with WP's guidelines. Despite the lack of news coverage, however, centsports is certainly notable. If nothing else their web-traffic should really speak for itself. They are the type of website that seasoned web users know to do a bit more research on. Wikipedia has assumed the role of default encyclopedia for many people, and in keeping with its mission of remaining a living, breathing and evolving database it should accept centsports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.218.80 (talk) 00:51, 19 November 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.