Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 14

I do believe that this sports club have done some noteworthy achievements. Football team played tier two (now tier four), women's handball team aswell (now tier three), mens handball team plays tier 3. Etc. (see deleted talk page). I don't know why the admin is not interesting in discussing the deletion with me, all I want is a serious explanation/discussion why it is not noteworthy. If we look at some other articles, especially for english sports clubs there are many articles there which I can not see have more importance, for example clubs existing for 5 years in the mid 50s playing tier 14 football.

I do aknowledge that England is more important than Norway on the English wikipedia, but I do believe that the club is noteworthy. Olaversterk (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some links:

Women's handball team promoted to 1st division (2nd tier) (Norwegian)
Men's football team played 2nd tier football —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olaversterk (talk • contribs) 23:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Olaversterk (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

England certainly isn't more important than Norway on the English wikipedia, or rather, it shouldn't be. There are more English-language sources, though, and these disputes all come down to the quality and number of sources available. I see that you do have one source, but is there another? The second link you provide is to Wikipedia, which (ironically) isn't allowed as a source for other articles because we don't meet our own standards for reliable sources. Your source doesn't have to be a link. It could also be a book, magazine, or other medium.
I'm a bit puzzled by the blunt and dismissive tone RHaworth took with you and I think he ought to have asked you explicitly and courteously to provide sources. I'm not thrilled to learn our admins are taking this tone with new users, to be frank.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was shocked that I was not able to put on a hangon sticker even if i got told to do so. I think that rapid deletion tag should last 24 hours before the article is deleted, but again, that's not up to me. In RHaworth's defense the article was not too good, but I had plans improving it.

- Here is a link for source of men team football merit. This page again links to the following books as sources. I could look for the books at the library if needed.

- Link showing Varhaug IL men's A team handball playing third tier. Note that third tier has six leagues, while tier 1 and 2 in handball only have one, thus the women's tier two achievement is of greater importance as I see it.

Hope it helps Olaversterk (talk) 09:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Book and magazine sources would normally need ISBN or ISSN numbers, plus a reference to which page the material appears on.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

excuse me, SM, since when do book or magazine sources require ISBN/ISSN in order to be valid sources? Most older works, and many current works published outside the main Western publishing countries, have neither. DGG ( talk ) 22:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, mate, I'd expect any reliable printed article about a recently-established Norwegian sports team to have an ISBN or ISSN. Norway's pretty far from being the third world and material on this team is not going to be historical. Yes, there are exceptions for certain historical or non-Western material, which is why I added the qualifier ("normally"), but I think a reasonable rule of thumb is that a reliable print publication normally has an ISBN/ISSN. — What I'm trying to do is explain that a mention in your local church newssheet doesn't satisfy the GNG.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Yes, most of those books do have ISBN numbers. But I don't know which one he has taken that exact data from. Olaversterk (talk) 11:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment until we can see the article. Being in a highish tier of a sporting league would normally a credible claim of importance or significance. Sourcing is an important issue, but it is barely relevant to the CSD criteria. We seem to have pretty low standards for sporting teams. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the primary criteria is going to require non-trivial coverage in multiple independant reliable sources - the references given so far are directory style entries, or other trivial coverage. Are there significant articles about the club? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Did some googling:

There are also many match reviews of the men's a team in football and handball and women's handball in several news papers. There is much more info to build a great article here on wikipedia about the club found in this newspaper. Olaversterk (talk) 11:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and list - including, in the club, a football team that played in the second tier is certainly enough to avoid an A7. I am not able to see the earlier drafts, in order to assess whether they contain worthwhile content, but the sources found above have the makings of notability. Probably enough doubt to merit an AfD discussion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Notability should be discussed at WP:AFD. After looking at the deleted version my opinion is that it did not qualify for an A7, but it was a borderline case since most of the information in this review was not in the article. Rettetast (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. This subject certainly needs further discussion. One question about the football club though - have they ever played in the Norwegian Cup? The general rule of thumb (yes, I know it's not a guideline) is that any club who has played in their national cup is generally notable. Bettia (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Reply:' I have found two times since 1980 the club has been in the Norwegian cup, 1982 and 1997. I haven't checked earlier years because I couldn't find data for these year. I want to friendly point out that this is a sports club, not only a football club. Olaversterk (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SEVEN Networks

Reviewer deleted this page citing no explanation of the subject's significance and later that the references included were either internal links from the company's website, or from various unimportant other websites. My post contained references to a number of sources including publications such as CNET, Connected Planet (formerly Telephony) and Wireless Week. These are all very respected telecom industry publications. SEVEN Networks’ customers are primarily wireless operators, content providers, and device manufacturers so it is unlikely that publications such as the Wall Street Journal would cover this company at this point, but with more than seven million active accounts and growing, I believe these articles show the company's noteworthiness. With SEVEN Networks' competitors having Wikipedia pages that are far more basic than my post, I request that this page be reinstated. DJADave (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since no google cache version is visible, please could an admin temporarily restore the page history so we can see for ourselves.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
page visible at User:DJADave/SEVEN Networks, to which I moved the fullest version. DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Article makes credible claims of significance or importance. The deleting admin is right that the sourcing is poor. But poor sourcing is not a ground for speedy deletion. Nor is a lack of notability. The A7 standard is lower and this article crossed it. Everything else is for AfD. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've got to agree that A7 didn't apply. I have to say overturn per Mkativerata. Mind you, that "article" does look exactly as if it was written by a member of SEVEN Networks' marketing department who has Wikipedia confused with a free web host, and I shouldn't imagine for a moment that it would survive AfD, so I'd gently suggest to the nominator that starting again wouldn't be a bad idea.
An article about a company or organisation ought to begin: "(Organisation name) is a (nationality) corporation based in (location) which was founded on (date)". It should not normally give a list of products unless those products are themselves notable enough for their own articles, though it could give a jargon-free outline of the kind of business the company is in. (By "jargon-free", I mean that language such as "Push-enabled mobile mobile email and messaging solutions" is totally inappropriate for a general encyclopaedia.) It certainly should not use the letters ™ — that's a red flag for material written by marketing people. Encyclopaedias don't use that acronym. Mentioning the company founder's name is another red flag; an encyclopaedia wouldn't say that unless the founder was notable for some other reason, but marketers like to get the boss's name on the copy. In short, it wants rewriting from scratch.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn though it's close to a G11 (lots of spammy stuff, but enough there to avoid G11 IMO), I don't think it's an A7 as significance is claimed. Hobit (talk) 14:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn then re-delete per CSD:G11, with liberty to userfy. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list - not an A7 but, as many above have said, close to a G11. At present it lacks the sources to establish notability, hence the need to list. However, an overturn and list could well be a Pyrrhic victory since it is unlikely to survive in its present form. Better, I suggest, for the nominator to withdraw the application, and take time to produce a clean, sourced version in user space. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your input and help getting this page restored. I have rewritten this entry with your input in mind and have added additional sources - would you mind taking a look and letting me know if this entry is ready to be published? You can find the edited entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DJADave/SEVEN_Networks DJADave (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll look at it. I want to record here that I think DJADave is showing a very creditable willingness to learn, adapt and rework this material, and I think the new draft is a huge improvement. There's still work to be done, but I will help.—S Marshall T/C 15:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 14

14 May 2010

Varhaug Idrettslag

SEVEN Networks

Simran Sethi (closed)