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 moved to Draft:Mycujoo. Consensus is substantially closer to deletion than to keeping, but I am calling an audible and moving this to draftspace, on the theory that it may or may not be improved with additional sources over the next few months. A condition of this move to draft is that the page, if improved, must be submitted for regular AFC review, and may not be unilaterally restored to mainspace without such review. To this end, I am locking the mainspace page so that some oversight will be required to move it back there. bd2412 T 21:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mycujoo[edit]

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

Most sources are to very niche football blogs, there seems to be a decent source, but mentions the subject in passing. A quick WP:BEFORE didn't unearth much more. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Is this one of those websites that could be deemed illegal streaming? Govvy (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Hi Govvy - in answer to your question, it's not an illegal streaming website, and I definitely wouldn't have created an article for such a site. It's a legitimate business with its primary office located in Amsterdam, and has partnership arrangements with football clubs, leagues, and federations around the world based on the sources provided. A trademark search also indicates that mycujoo has been registered in Switzerland. Jleaguer (talk)

Weak Delete I really can't see it, I am inclined to delete this article, it feels to me like it fails WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Hi Govvy - some further sources including a major TV feature below. I hope this now helps satisfy your doubts. Jleaguer (talk)

Comments Hi Drewmutt - I would disagree with you here that "most sources" are very niche football blogs. The sources referenced include the governing body of European football (UEFA), the governing body of football in Iran (Football Federation Islamic Republic of Iran), the governing body of football in Brazil (Brazilian_Football_Confederation), the governing body of football in Asia (Asian_Football_Confederation), one of the main media organisations in Brazil (O_Globo), a very widely read news organisation in the Netherlands (NU.nl), and a newspaper in Thailand (Thai_Post). There is also a source - which you confirm above is decent - that in this instance specifically makes mycujoo the subject of the article. Jleaguer (talk)
Comments Hi GiantSnowman I appreciate the feedback. I think there's legitimate reason here to believe this meets the general notability guideline. The sources used are both reliable and independent, comprising as they do both major organisations in the football world, as well as in the general media, across a multiplicity of languages, which have been published over a reasonable period of time. Jleaguer (talk)
Keep Hi all. I've just discovered a feature on mycujoo which was broadcast on SIC in November, a major Portuguese television channel. Will wait for your comments, but if included in the sources this would clearly help satisfy notability criteria. In addition, here is a further source from the major/established Brazilian newspaper Lance! Jleaguer (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in part per sources presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notabilty, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Hi Highking - thanks for the note. I appreciate that you've said it fails, but could you explain why it fails GNG? There are references/sources from major football clubs, football federations, and governing bodies around the world; articles written specifically referencing mycujoo (not in passing) in established media/publications; and a significant televised feature on the company on one of the most important Portuguese television stations. Does that not establish notability, and if not, what more would be required for that level of evidence to be satisfied? Jleaguer (talk)

Response You say there are references/sources who have written articles specifically referencing mycujoo. WP:GNG states a topic requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The key phrase that is most often misinterpreted is "independent of the subject". This does not mean that the publisher is a separate company from the topic company, but that the reference/article is intellectually independent. The WP:NCORP guidelines (especially WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND) provide more explanation and a guidelines on how to interpret GNG in the context of establishing notability for companies. Therefore, references that rely extensively on company announcements and interviews/quotations from either the topic company or affiliated or partner companies are not considered "independent of the subject". Of the references you have provided and the others available online, none meet the requirements for establishing notability. For example, this refrerence from insideworldfootball relies on an announcement made by the Bhutan Football Federation, a business partner. This from worldsoccertalk and this from sporttechie.com both rely on an interview or Q&A with the CEO. This devpost.com reference was created by the company. This reference from blogs.oglobo.globo.com fails WP:RS as blogs are not considered reliable sources. This todayonline.com reference is based on an announcement from the Football Association of Singapore, another business partner. Hope that explains why the references fail the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I think the sources in the article, especially this one, satisfy WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:54, 4 February 2018 (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.