Talk:ProFootballTalk: Difference between revisions
Endlessdan (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
24.196.143.66 (talk) →Article contains obvious bias: Disagree |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
This article reads like a commercial. The language used can only lead one to assume it was written by representatives of the web site itself. I suggest that an impartial third party help clean up this love fest. |
This article reads like a commercial. The language used can only lead one to assume it was written by representatives of the web site itself. I suggest that an impartial third party help clean up this love fest. |
||
Can we get the IP of the complainers and editors. It doesn't seem to be written as a favorable view of the site, but it does nail the overall format. The blog is more like an online radio show, and shows less "love" than the similar Jim Rome page. |
|||
== Agreed about being an advertisement == |
== Agreed about being an advertisement == |
Revision as of 23:25, 3 September 2007
The site is incredibly popular amongst general NFL fans and all related to the sport professionally - whether directly, players, coaches, NFL front offices, or indirectly, ESPN, Sports illustrated.
It has a major cult following and is becoming more popular than any of the pay-for media sites such as espn.com etc etc.
Article contains obvious bias
This article reads like a commercial. The language used can only lead one to assume it was written by representatives of the web site itself. I suggest that an impartial third party help clean up this love fest.
Can we get the IP of the complainers and editors. It doesn't seem to be written as a favorable view of the site, but it does nail the overall format. The blog is more like an online radio show, and shows less "love" than the similar Jim Rome page.
Agreed about being an advertisement
The page should be taken down since it is obviously an advertisment for the website. This will also continue with the tradition of deleting other football websites like TheHuddle.com. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jbgiunta (talk • contribs) 21:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
Biased article
This article is little more than a commercial. I do not think it follows wiki's neutral point of view policy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.131.21.239 (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
soo... do you think it should be deleted? Enigmaman 21:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
soo... do you think it should be deleted?
Yeah, I think it should probably be deleted. Do you have any thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.131.21.239 (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
Not sure. I think it's worthy of having a wikipedia page about the website, but maybe it can be edited for neutrality. Just my opinion. More experienced editors may have a better idea of what to do. Enigmaman 23:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm a fan of the site, but this might as well have been written by Florio himself. I think this defintely needs to be edited to remove the bias because as this profile will tell you profootballtalk.com itself supports unbiased opinions.
keep it, but edit it
yes, its biased, but no ... it should not be deleted. It is however, no longer an advert as it was a couple months ago.
Delete this page
How do we add a poll for deletion??