Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayodhya City F.C.

Ayodhya City F.C.

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Ayodhya City F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article fails the WP:GNG as it hasn't competed at a national club level. Not Homura (talk) 06:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I am also going to add these articles as they also fail the WP:GNG guidelines.

• Sing Rakhangthong Muangkan F.C.
• Mahidol University Sport Science F.C.
• Pad Siam F.C.
• Thonburi University F.C.

• Delete per nom. Deb (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, failing WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 11:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment complete mischaracterisation of WP:GNG on the part of the nominator. Did they mean WP:FOOTYN? I don't read Thai, but there's a chance Ayodhya City FC and Pad Siam FC do pass WP:GNG. The other ones can go. SportingFlyer talk 11:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete all - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 11:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment What are you talking about Not Homura? Competing at a national club level has nothing to do with the WP:GNG. If you meant FOOTYN (Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability), that isn't a guideline and isn't any kind of deletion rationale. What we need here is a discussion on lack of sources available, and I see no evidence that the Nominator has done a WP:BEFORE search. SportingFlyer's comment indicates they might have (but that user tends to be too linient in handing out GNG candy to sources). It isn't clear if GiantSnowman or Govvy have done a search or simply assessed the sources in the articles (please clarify). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 13:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Reply All teams say they didn't compete in the FA Cup, there for, they can't qualify WP:FOOTYN, also, GNG asks for multiple reliable sources. I don't see that what so ever. Govvy (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Insertcleverphrasehere: where is your evidence of notability. Happy to reconsider if you can provide something. GiantSnowman 13:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
    • So to clarify, @GiantSnowman: and @Govvy: You haven't done any search for sources before !voting delete, but just based on the currently bad state of sourcing in the articles? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 14:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
      • WP:BEFORE applies to the nominator and I trust that they have done it. As stated, if you have found additional sources which demonstrates notability then I will change my !vote. GiantSnowman 14:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Er, it's Thai football in Taiwanese! I am an Englishman that lives in England, working on English wikipedia! Insertcleverphrasehere, I think you're lacking some common-sense if you think that I can find enough sources for amateur football on the other side of the world run in a different language!! Govvy (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)