Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soccer Matrix

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. overturned un-necessary relist by a non-admin, The issue is sources and the keep side hasn't produced any. Also keep arguments are variations of INTERESTING & OTHERSTUFF which cut no ice. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer Matrix[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable product, no references 2 says you, says two 22:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe Soccer Matrix is a very notable topic, of interest to soccer enthusiasts, engineers, and others. I don't play or watch soccer, but am interested in this device from the standpoint of impact sensors and signal processing. Someone else might not care about that but be interested in the use of computers for sports training. Someone researching on Wikipedia for any of that might be interested in this article. I haven't used the thing and don't know how well it actually works. I've been trying to find more references, which might include positive or negative criticism of the technology or this specific device. I've found some intriguing online videos that show it in use but am not sure that those are appropriate to link to.Mandolinface (talk)

Comment This deletion discussion has absolutely nothing to do with the fact Soccer Matrix is a commercial product, the issue is that its a non-notable product. Notability for the purposes of Wikipedia means that an article's subject (person, organization, product, etc...) has been discussed in multiple print or online sources that are reliable, non-trivial, and independent of the topic itself. From everything we've been able to see, Soccer Matrix has not been mentioned anywhere, let alone in sources that would meet the thresholds required by WP:V and WP:N. 2 says you, says two 05:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-non notable product with no references except to an advertizing site, which seems to be its only google hits. He iro 01:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a European football enthusiast, I disagree with Mandolinface, this isn't notable. It's a product that fails N and currently the page itself fails V. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to my earlier comment, I've been told that Soccermatrix is the first implimentation of MEMs technlogy in a sports training product—though I'm waiting to find a valid source to reference before putting that in the article. Anyone researching sports training devices, electronic sensing in sports, soccer training methods, etc. might want an article just like this.

Add to that the precedent of the many other sports and technology Wikipedia articles that happen to deal with a commercial product:

Nike Mercurial Vapor (one of five individual articles on Adidas products)

Adidas Predator (one of 17 individual articles on Adidas products)

X-Bike

...If we delete Soccer Matrix, shouldn't we delete all these.Mandolinface (talk)

Some of them, probably.--ClubOranje^T 00:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the idea. I went through and AfDd a few. The shoues are both notable, as is the swimsuit and perhaps some of the software, but the Shoe Goo has to go. BTW this is an excellent example of how WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS can backfire. Oh and this article still isn't notable enough to be kept. Sven Manguard _Talk 05:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a "backfire," that's my point. Lets delete all articles that merely describe a commercial product, if that's the policy. Some of these, unlike the Soccer Matrix article, are filled with adjectives and unsupported claims (especially in the case of athletic shoe articles).Mandolinface (talk) 04:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no demonstration of notability, merely an advert for a product. No obvious sources found to indicate it is anything worthy of note here.--ClubOranje^T 00:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expand previous view with policy reasoning: per WP:NOT; Personal inventions...not notable enough to be an article until multiple, independent, and reliable secondary sources report on it, per WP:GNG; has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject --ClubOranje^T 04:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sheer advertising. Figureofnine (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ...unless there is a Wikipedia policy against some interesting use of technology that hapens to be a commercial product--in which case many other things in Wikipedia should go too.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.135.113 (talk) 6 October 2010

Note: This IP has two edits, both here. Clear canvassing or meatpuppetry. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like an interesting example of technology. I would like to see more information about how the product actually works, however. If this article is deleted, than the many thousands of other Wikipedia articles that discuss specific sports products should also be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aholub (talk • contribs) 23:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC) — Aholub (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This user has less than ten edits, and is not likely to have found this page without assistance. Likely meatpuppet. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why single out this page as too commercial when there's an actual Wikipedia category for Nike products? Is Nike paying for that or something? This soccer matrix page is written without adjectives or hyperbole and other things that would make it advertising-like. It reads like an encyclopedia entry on something interesting--though it does need more references. .75.0.176.163 (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user has less than ten edits, and is not likely to have found this page without assistance. Likely meatpuppet. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 20:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 20:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is appears to be on a notable topic. The article just needs to be rewritten. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 20:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment POV issues aside, what exactly is notable about it? There are no non-trivial, reliable sources that are independent of the subject that I was able to find... I'm not entirely convinced it even passes WP:V. Rescue squad is great for articles where there is a reasonable belief that the subject is notable (i.e. reliable sources are known to exist but simply need to be tracked down and/or incorporated in the article) or the article has potential but is littered with copyright, POV, SPAM or other concerns. When the product's manufacturer is redlinked and there are no returns on a google/ google news search other than this article and press-release reprints, there's a pretty good chance the article's subject is not notable. 2 says you, says two 22:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that there are three SPAs for keep. (possible socks, although Mandolinface is contesting this and I'll say nothing more on the subject until after the investigation) That leaves the creator and Alpha Quadrant as only the two keeps. Compare that against the four (five) deletes, and there's a clear consensus to lose this thing. Sven Manguard _Talk 01:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.