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.
Doesn't meet WP:WEB and is simply a puff piece about their site. KelleyCook 03:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It does meet WP:WEB, at least according to the references listed. See notes on the article's talk page. *Mishatx*-In\Out 04:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mishatx. I personally don't feel college football message boards are notable, but if any are, this one appears to be. ObtuseAngle 05:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it does meet WP:WEB, which is tough to do with a site of this nature. It does need a bit of the puffery taken out, and the Critcisms section seems to lack sourcing. Realkyhick 05:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable site about a major University's sports programs. One of the 10 biggest university-specific fan sites in the United States. Article has just been cited and is already well referenced and useful. Johntex\talk 05:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references establish notability per WP:WEB. I am also copying this comment from the article's talk page: "It is the ninth most visited college sports site in the country. It has been referenced in national and local media." -- Black Falcon 05:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources have been cited and its notability has been established. One of the most visited university fan sites in the US, should assert enough notability. Terence Ong恭喜发财 08:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has multiple references by independent sources, meets notability criteria. —OcatecirTalk 11:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I nominated this particular as keeping college fansites, against WP:WEB will open up a huge can of worms as every school tries to outdo each other. There are many more recognizable college football fan sites than HornFans, off the top of my head "EveryDay should be Saturday", the fark board at "SoonerNation", "NDNation", "Wild West Football", "BuckNuts", "The Blue-Gray Sky". And then there are the many more top quality college basketball programs that have there loyal fan sites. And almost none of them have Wikipedia entries -- a quick perusal shows the recent creation of EDSBS (well sourced) and soonerfans (it is an unsourced stub -- I speedied it). Furthermore, the very nature of sports fansites, means that rival boards entails that they will be puff pieces and likely will soon get into edit wars. I think this is not the reason that WP:WEB exists. To prevent an encyclopedia from turning into a self promoting forum. -- KelleyCook 15:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The above strong delete is also by the nominator. It should be marked comment. --MECU≈talk 15:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why would the nominator (who in the case of an admin who moves a "hangon" to AFD may not even have an opinion on the matter) be excluded from voicing his opinion on the "vote". For that matter, these aren't straight up and down votes either. It is a concensous building exercise which may or may not fluctuate during the week. -- KelleyCook 16:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My point is that you voiced your "support" for deletion in the nomination. Adding further comments is fine, but trying to double-count your vote is not. You did not state in the nom that you did not have an opinion. If you had, then listing below with your support/oppose would be fine. --MECU≈talk 15:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't buy the slippery slope argument by the nominator. Because we don't have more notable sites doesn't mean this isn't notable on it's own. It has many references by third party national sources. A potential for vandalism is not a reason to delete. Should we delete George W. Bush since it's highly vandalized (although not currently, since it's protected...)? --MECU≈talk 15:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article seems to indicate that it is more than just a fan website. Charity work and activities beyond the scope of the internet seem to establish it more as a club/organization, and given the amount of sourcing and references available, seems to meet inclusion standards. Arkyan 15:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "More than a website" is incorrect. It is the function of sports fansites to organize get togethers, hold raffles, and offer promotions. Therefore, that this one has succeeded in getting hoo-rah parties and the like is not testimony to its surpassing "college sports fansite" status, but merely that it succeeds in fulfilling that status. Given that it's a fansite for a very large U. with an extremely high sporting profile, that would be assured. The question is whether this is appealing to people outside of the fan world. The answer to that seems to be "no." Are visitors to Tarheelblue (for UNC Chapel Hill, and a gigantic site) going to go to Hornsfans for some reason? Are Georgiadogs.com (even bigger) visitors going there? Are Buckeye fans going to go there to debate? This is just a website, and being #13 among college fan sites fits with the college's rankings. <shrug> An everyday site doing an everyday job. Utgard Loki 18:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Fans of other teams do go there to debate (and flame). But this is common among most sports message boards. *Mishatx*-In\Out 18:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if we are going to argue that only fans of the team will visit the article, we might as well argue the same thing about the school athletic article, Texas Longhorns, or about the school itself, University of Texas at Austin. For that matter, does anyone outside of Ap Lei Chau care about that island? People visit articles to learn about the subject. That includes people with a keen interest as well as people with a passing interest. It is entirely reasonable to believe that people interested in discussion boards will browse articles belonging to such a category. It is also reasonable to assume that a football fan will visit articles related to competing teams, etc. There is virutally no Wikipedia article that will be of interest to every single person in the world. This article in question is useful to enough readers to make it valuable, and it is well sourced. Johntex\talk 21:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Texas Longhorns]. The article appears to me to be in large part a puff piece ( though some criticisms have been added ), and, references notwithstanding, this is not appropriate for us here. Please remember that popularity is not the same thing as notability: there are numerous fan websites, and the article provides no reason to believe that this one does anything that its peers don't. It is already a well-established principle here that audience size is only a very minor factor in consideration of notability. Finally, inspection of the references suggests that these tend simply to mention the website in passing, and are not about the website per se. WMMartin 14:22, 2 March 2007 (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.