Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports betting forum

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 of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 12:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sports betting forum

Original research essay that doesn't seem to be encyclopedic. FCYTravis 03:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but needs serious cleanup. Sycthos^Talk 04:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Why would you keep an entirely unsourced article about the unencyclopedic "general concept of "sports betting forums"? FCYTravis 04:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Basically, that's what the "serious cleanup" is for. I don't think this article is entirely hopeless, as it explains a type of culture. Sycthos^Talk 04:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Then I would vote delete unless cleanup is done, because I sure as hell have no clue where to start tackling this article, and if it gets kept it's just going to sit there for another six months with nothing ever done to it. To begin with, the name is all wrong, if we're trying to describe a culture. FCYTravis 04:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Terence Ong 04:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom unless serious cleanup/citing is done.--SarekOfVulcan 04:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 07:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• keep, add cleanup and citation tags and give somebody a chance to do the work.
• Keep, how can the article be improved if it is deleted? --Critic 17:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. --King of All the Franks 17:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Please explain to me how this can be cleaned up at all. It's a completely unsourced OR essay - and are you going to do the cleanup? Again, slapping a cleanup and citation tag on this article will mean that it will sit around for the next six months with nothing done to it. Have any of you even LOOKED at Category:Wikipedia cleanup lately? There are over 14,000 articles in there. If nobody actually cleans this article up by the end of this AFD, I'm going to delete the article. FCYTravis 18:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    • And in what way would that not be an abuse of your admin powers?! Also sounds a little like a threat to me. (Reason for intervention: a call for help from a bewildered and frustrated new user. See my Talk page if required). --kingboyk 23:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Sports betting online is definitely notable. It's a many billion dollar a year business. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 23:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• This discussion isn't about whether sports betting online is notable. It's about whether we should have a POV original research essay at the title "Sports betting forum." FCYTravis 01:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I must be blind because I checked Category:Wikipedia cleanup and could only see about 400 articles. Can somebody tell me how to see all required articles?

And if I see articles that need cleanup, can I just go ahead and do that? Ginar 02:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Ginar, take a look at all the subcats, or see Wikipedia:Cleanup. As of Dec. 3, 2005, there were 11,328 articles tagged for some sort of cleanup. And by all means, please clean up anything you see! Tagging is just a way of figuring out how massive the challenge is :) FCYTravis 03:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

gasp! suddenly I can't breath....walls are closing in....darkness.....feel cold......feel silence........feel..............

...

but seriously, YIKES. Ginar 03:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup. And make me a sandwich. And someone do my tax return. I have tagged my stomach and threatening letter from the IR appropriately. --Malthusian (talk) 12:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Seriously, abstain. It doesn't have the ring of self-promotion and speculation that most OR articles do, but I'm not sure whether this is the right place to cover Internet sports betting, and with so many 'keep because it's worth cleaning up' arguments you'd think at least one editor would actually offer to clean it up. If someone did clean the article up it might clarify the issue. --Malthusian (talk)
• Abstain I think this could be a good article, but it needs a cleanup and I won't be doing it. --kingboyk 23:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• It's well-written, not a WP:VSCA, but needs cleanup. Weak keep for the moment. Stifle 23:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

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.