Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extratime.com

Extratime.com

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article doesn't seem very notable, see WP:WEBSITE. I could not find many independent sources about this website. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 22:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Websites, and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I am little unsure, but mine is a very weak keep, the website is popular and seems viable for an article. Govvy (talk) 08:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep, I think it's notable enough, and it's used a source in enough other articles, and so should have this stub page to show how reliable this site is. Needs updating. Some of the language has drifted to non-encyclopedic. I've restored reliable sources which have been lost over time. The original article had a lot of Irish Daily Mail refs, which is now deprecated. Uncited statements can be trimmed/removed. -Bogger (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~. If this title is kept, it needs additional work. While I tempered some of the quasi-promotional editorial and unattributed opinions, more than a few of the existing sources appear to barely mention the subject in passing. And it requires, at best, OR and SYNTH to use those sources to support the text they are placed alongside. At the very least there are WP:TSI issues in several areas. At worst, some of the "webpage in which the subject website is just mentioned placed at the end of broad-ranging sentence" could be seen as a form of WP:REFBOMBing. Guliolopez (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per my earlier comment above, I do not see how notability under WP:NWEB or WP:GNG is established. As discussed in WP:NNEWSPAPER and WP:NMEDIA, news sources and media outlets do not routinely cover each other. And so it can sometimes be difficult to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV in WP:INDEPENDENT sources for subjects of that type. However, I cannot find even passing mentions or trivial coverage of even the basic facts relating to the subject here (even the basics of its foundation date and founder can only seemingly be established by the subject website itself - no other sources seem to even mention this in passing). If, per WP:WEBCRIT, the subject website had received some notable awards or something, then that might be contributory. But the "awards" section simply mentions nominations for web awards (not wins). And the only award that seems to have been "won" was an award for Twitter profiles - rather than actual websites. (I would separately note that, just because a website or news outlet is reliable and useful as a source, to the extent that it is included as a reference in multiple articles, it doesn't mean the website itself requires its own article. Reliability and notability are not the same thing....). I cannot conceive of any WP:ATD options (redirect to where? Draftify to what end?) and so am left with: delete. Guliolopez (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]