User talk:Nz archangel

Notability of OleOle[edit]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on OleOle, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because OleOle is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting OleOle, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 05:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More about OleOle[edit]

That the website is important to you does not make it notable as defined by Wikipedia's guidelines on notability and on creating articles about websites. Please read both of these links, as they tell you what kinds of subjects merit Wikipedia articles. The general principle is that something is notable if it is discussed, reviewed, or is otherwise the subject of extensive writing by some reliable source UNAFFILIATED with itself. If you could provide references to these external, third-party sources, that would go a long way to establishing the notability of this website. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

research?[edit]

I'm not an academic or researcher...how am I supposed distinguish "reliable published works" from something that doesn't meet specific or subjective criteria? I did a search of oleole.com on google, and found some articles written on other sites, but I don't know if they meet required standard. The examples I found were: http://www.ussoccer.com/articles/viewArticle.jsp_1015809.html http://www.hispanicprwire.com/news.php?l=in&id=8728&cha=5 http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6672192/OleOle-com-Named-Exclusive-Travel.html http://www.killerstartups.com/Web20/oleole--The-Destination-Site-for-Football-Fans/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nz archangel (talk • contribs)

Hey, don't forget to sign your posts to talk pages by using four tildes ~~~~ after the messages. I would say, of the four, the first is probably the most reliable in terms of establishing notability. The second and third link are both reprints of a press release by the company itself. Don't get me wrong, for the purpose of adding information to the article, these press releases contain LOTS of useful information that can be used to flesh out the article, but for the purpose of establishing notability; well, notability requires that OTHERS notice you, and self-written press releases don't qualify. The fourth is a blog, and blogs should be used sparingly as a source for reliability reasons. However, given the nature of the first source you provide above, I would endorse recreating the article. If this site is a business partner of a major football association like US Soccer, as it appears to be, than it very well might be notable enough. That is not to say that everyone will agree with me. Your mileage may vary with that. If you need help citing sources in the article, PLEASE LET ME KNOW, I will do what I can to help you work through some of the more technical aspects of Wikipedia. I can also help polish the article so that it better meets the standards of Wikipedia. I am always glad to help a new editor learn the ropes of Wikipedia, and if there is ANYTHING at all I can do to help, please drop me a note on my talk page. Later, and good luck. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the advice[edit]

Thanks for the help and advice Jayron32 - I'll try and google around a bit more to see if I can find other sources. I'll also remember to sign off - it's all new to me! Nz archangel 19:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem. We were all new once. Remember, let me know and I'll help out anyway I can... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]