Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eureka Sports


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete by. Reason: WP:CSD. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Eureka Sports

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per source searches, including custom searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America1000 20:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Has received in-depth coverage in the news, including in Krungthep Turakij newspaper and True4U channel's morning news. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. References listed by above fail the criteria for establishing notability as they are entirely based on interviews with company personnel and are therefore not intellectually independent and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND.  -- HighKing ++ 20:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I'm not sure what policy or guideline states that interview-based coverage by reliable sources don't count as reliable. WP:INTERVIEW does say, "An independent interviewer represents the 'world at large' giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability." --Paul_012 (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * More to the point, WP:INTERVIEW says "There we have a specific definition requiring that others not connected with the subject take note and that they do so by offering their own secondary thoughts in reliable sources". Certainly (using Google Translate) the first reference offers no independent opinion or analysis. I'm afraid I cannot analysis the second. -- HighKing ++ 21:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just noticed that I made a mistake; the first link isn't relevant to the subject. The second link is a profile of the company presented by the news programme; that the majority of the scoop is presented by the journalist's voice-over should indicate that the material mainly consists of the journalists' secondary analysis, I think. See also the additional sources below. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) &#xF0F6;  21:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: Oops. I just realised that the first link I gave was not about the subject discussed. I've struck the link, and apologise for the mistake. That said, there's also plenty of coverage of the company's sponsorship dealings with professional sports teams, which I think collectively contribute to establishing notability. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Bear in mind I'm using Google Translate which can be flawed, but for the purposes of translating the above references, I don't think that's an issue. Without exception, all of the references are either PRIMARY sources (based on company announcements or announcements from affiliated organizations or personnel), none are intellectually independent or have any in-depth material or independent opinion or analysis on the company and they fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. There isn't any basis for references to "collectively" contribute towards establishing notability especially in circumstances where they each individually fail the criteria for establishing notability. The volume of references you have found only really goes to demonstrate that Eureka Sports has a functioning marketing department. -- HighKing ++ 19:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that's a symptom of how Thai journalism works. Probably 70% of news reports is just direct rehashing of information from police reports, politicians' statements, press releases, etc. If we were to restrict using the news as a source to truly in-depth investigative journalism, we'd probably be left with 10% of what would comparably pass as notable in the West. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunate or not, that's the way the criteria for establishing notability operates. If the company is truly notable, there must exist at least two intellectually independent references in secondary sources. It's the same criteria we hold every NCORP article to. -- HighKing ++ 11:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947 ( c ) (m)   04:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as unambigious advertising. The content is 100% promotional, even including a complete list of "teams that wear uniforms manufactured and provided by Eureka". Etc. I requested a deletion under G11; let's see if takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.