Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Football Fans Census


 * 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 No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 17:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Football Fans Census

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Was tagged speedy as blatant advertising, but it seems less spammy than that, however there is still a question of notability - fails WP:CORP. Carlossuarez46 22:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps one reason the IP originally tagged the article as spam was the fact that a few days ago, one of the original creators of the article, User:Eddieonline, added external links to footballfanscensus.com on 52 different pages over the space of ~40 minutes, coupled with discussion on the talk page, regarding a possible conflict of interest of User:Footballfanscensus. I don't actually have much of an opinion on whether the article should be deleted. --Dreaded Walrus t c 22:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Of 15 citations, and eight general references, only one is non-trivial, and about Football Fans Census itself: . However, several reliable publications have cited their surveys, which indicates that it is a respected company within soccer circles.  Resolute 22:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is a blatant advert written and regularly updated by the company concerned. 87.127.44.154 06:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as group is cited in reputable publications. Article does need attention though to read less like an advert. Number   5  7  08:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * comment: I agree the article needs attention. The difficulty here is that the edits by independent editors are made worthless by the constant edits to the article by the company themselves who have two registered users: footballfanscensus and Eddieonline.   87.127.44.154 08:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Users not editing articles they are involved with is mostly just a guideline - even Jimmy Wales himself has edited his own article on occasion, under his username of User:Jimbo Wales. Meanwhile, I thought I would bring this to your (and other users') attentions. That constitutes a blatant self-reference. Also, I don't know if you've got some kind of strong internet filter enabled that tries to remove all telephone numbers posted in forms, but your edits have removed pretty much all numbers in the article, which goes some way to break pretty much all external links, many internal links, and also damages references. See here, here, here, and, most damagingly, here. Perhaps you could avoid editing Wikipedia from your current location, as your edits almost uniformly accidentally vandalise the article. The reason I mention this here is so that if possible, an admin could rollback changes? --Dreaded Walrus t c 09:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thanks for the flag - for the benefit of others the stripping of numbers was caused by the JahJah add-on to Firefox, which affected the way numbers were displayed on webpages. I didn't realise it was also having an effect on forms such as this.  The addon has now been deleted.  I wonder if I am the first person this has happened to, or whether some form of warning about this should be made available somewhere?  87.127.44.154 05:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I feel that it fails WP:CORP and is spam that has been dressed up as an encyclopedic article. --Malcolmxl5 21:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, tricky one but reliable publications cite from them. I've heard of them via these publications. Englishrose 12:11, 26 August 2007 (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.