Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seven Seven


 * 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 delete. Sr13 09:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Seven Seven

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Apparently non-notable school team. (Contested WP:PROD; see the talk page.) Delete. - Mike Rosoft 09:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Points noted on talk page, but this team isn't notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Even very specific seearching brings up no notable ghits.  Cat tleG irl  '' talk 09:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Objection says I, as Seven-Seven have a supporter base of 1000 + ...what kind of school team has THAT many supporters? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * Ask any high school football team in Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, etc. DarkAudit 14:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of them. Some American high school football teams get 50,000 people out for each game. Some Canadian high-school hockey teams can get out 10,000 in small towns. -- Charlene 16:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Using the search terms "Seven Seven" +futsal, I didn't find anything on Google about this at all, not even a confirmation of the team's existance. Also, the "1000 supporters" claim above fails to impress even if it's true. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. No independent coverage, so fails WP:N. The claims that the club has many supporters and is known "around Hobart" are irrelevant unless they can be backed up by reliable sources. EALacey 13:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable football team. It can have as many supporters as it likes, but unless they get covered by a reliable source they shouldn't be included here. Hut 8.5 14:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete no reliable sources. Only source is their own page linked three times. DarkAudit 14:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Despite my comment above about 1,000 fans not being a big deal, if this were notable in Australia it would be notable for Wikipedia. However, the low number of Ghits and the fact that the article isn't attributed to independent reliable sources leads me to believe it isn't notable even in Australia. This isn't taking place in Zimbabwe or Guyana, where something highly notable might not have any online references whatsoever. Australia has a huge web presence, and any current event that should be popular with young, tech-savvy people but which doesn't have a large number of Ghits isn't likely to be notable. -- Charlene 16:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

One person's noteable may well be anothers not worth bothering with. An encyclopedia, espeically one such as this which because of its online world wide community vision should have no limits - should HAVE no limits. Sitting on your high horses denying young people the right to have their achievements included is discriminatory and smacks more than a little of elitism. Restricting content that is defamatory or offensive or incorrect is acceptable (although I have noticed, not always enforced) Restricting content because you have deemed something that is important too a group of young men, their families, friends and supporters at the bottom end of the planet becuase its not significant to you is high handed and just plain rude. It's not like you have a limited number of pages and your running out!

So much for an inclusive online community. Best be careful all powerful administrators or wikipedia will become no more inclusive than the old outdated forms of communication and restrictive information dissemination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.168.106.41 (talk • contribs)

Yulia Onsman
 * Reply You are right in that Wikipedia should not use subjective notability tests, and Wikipedia does not. The agreed test, as outlined in Notability, is that something which has achieved coverage in reliable sources should be included. It has yet to be demonstrated, by anyone, that this article passes this test. I'm sure the achievements of this team are very important to those involved, but that's not the issue here. Just because anyone can edit this encyclopedia doesn't mean anything can be included. Hut 8.5 14:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, Wikipedia should review its attitude to what should or should not be included in its encyclopedia. Before this article was established, there was no preceding article on anything entitled 'Seven Seven'. Why is it, when an article with at least some substance to it is posted, does Wikipedia Admin decide it is their right to delete such an article, preferring wasted space to an article that has information useful to some. Would it not be wiser, fairer and in the best interests of gaining the vastest encyclopedia possible, to allow these articles until such time as another article of the same title is submitted. Then if there are two proposed articles of the same title, it can then be put up for discussion, which is the more important or notable.

If this article is deleted, then 'Seven Seven' will once again go back to being empty, just space, waiting for the next dictator named Seven Seven to attempt to rule the world. Waiting for the next business called Seven Seven to go bankrupt and create a government scandal. It is ridiculous that Admin of this site have such stupid, for lack of better term, guidelines and rules. Let the article stay until such time as a more notable and important one is submitted. Its a disgrace that what is apparently meant to be a public, democratic encyclopedia is turned into a censored encyclopedia where its purely a matter of opinion on the part of the admin to determine the fate of the articles. How is this a democracy? Shame on all of you for wanting this to be the Wikipedian way.

J. Tonmor
 * 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.