Inspiredminds

Footbo

A tag has been placed on Footbo, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of Footbo and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 14:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Don't worry you haven't overstepped any marks at all. It is just that the article as it was, came across as being spam which is why an admin has now deleted the article. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 15:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I must admit I can't recall all the content in it now. What it might be best to do is create your own sandbox where you can add stuff to your hearts content. User :Inspiredminds/sandbox is the page you would need to create which is then a page for you to test out edits etc. It might also be worth checking out other similar articles that cover other sites like yours and see how they are worded etc. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 15:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Inspiredminds - what is needed for this article to exist here is verifyability of the notability of the subject. This comes through references to reliable and independant sources (news organisations, books, awards, critical reviews by respected authorities) - Peripitus (Talk) 14:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Peripitus, isnt that the case? There were news sources and press releases referenced - I think the sources were TechCrunch and PRNewswire - both independent. What else is required? Inspiredminds (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes and No. the PRNewsWire link, like most links from this service, is a copy of a "Footbo" press release. All companies send these out and all they serve to do is say that Footbo has some money to pay for a press release. The Techcrunch article used words like "will launch its official Beta in August". That said a further news site has written about the site recently. To give you time and space to work on the article, without threat of quick deletion, I've restored the article and moved it her→User:Inspiredminds/Sandbox. When you think it's ready and meets either the WP:WEB or WP:CORP notability guidelines you can move it back to the mainspace. Please drop me a note if you think I can help. Happy Editing - Peripitus (Talk) 21:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Inspiredminds, I think that the issue with the subject (not the article) still is independant third party commentary. While there is slight commentary about the site, all currently revolves around press releases (like this in german) a single techcrunch article and a followup interview on www.epltalk.com. At present the footbo site seems to not meet the Notability (organizations and companies) and Notability (web) standards. If you remove the press releases all I can see is a techcrunch article and a followup interview by EPL. With the current level of interest and writing about the site it still doesn't not meet any of the notability guidelines → even in the interviews most of the material presented is from the company itself - Peripitus (Talk) 03:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Footbo

An article that you have been involved in editing, Footbo, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Footbo. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Harro5 22:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Alexandre Song‎

Hi. I reverted your edit to the article because I felt that you were attempting to add spam links. I do apologize for my mistake and I have reverted my edit. I will also remove the warning that I placed above. --Patrick (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Footbo

Hi Inspiredminds. "Patrolled" means I looked at it and didn't immediately see any problems (I wasn't aware of the previous AfD). However Peripitus must've thought that it wasn't substantially different to the AfD'd version. The [discussion] doesn't seem to be exactly a landslide in favour of delete, so perhaps you'd like to take the issue to Wikipedia:Deletion review, or ask Peripitus to reconsider. Marasmusine (talk) 09:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Footbo

The article was updated, the issues were addressed. There were more links to independent and notable sites. So why did you delete it? Inspiredminds (talk) 08:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Where pages have been deleted as a result of a deletion discussion, recreations of them are quickly deleted under the speedy deletion criteria. If you think there is new material, not considered in the original debate, that makes the subject notable then deletion review is the appropriate forum. When I look through the links in the latest article version though I cannot see that the site is notable enough to survive a deletion debate:

1. An interview with the founder that mentions the site in passing
2. Another interview, by the same person as #1, that does go into more depth
3. Dead link
4. An advertising piece by Soccerlens
5. German article - brief but ok
6. A blog link - not a reliable source
7. An advertising piece
8. A blog piece - probably not a reliable source
9. Spanish - another advertising piece
10. Press release
11. Article where the only footbo note is "he told footbo" - nothing else
12. Another article with just the "he told footbo" note

Lots of advertising material but very little about the site - I suggest you look at it again in six months. The site may have attracted significant interest by then - Peripitus (Talk) 09:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)