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

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. Discussion shows that whilst some sourcing can be found for these clubs the level of coverage is at best trivial / routine. Fenix down (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ayodhya City F.C.

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

(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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

Delete per nom, failing WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 11:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete all - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]

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)[reply]
- @Insertcleverphrasehere: where is your evidence of notability. Happy to reconsider if you can provide something. GiantSnowman 13:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - 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. Giant Snowman 14:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: There is an issue with blindly trusting the nominator (who has said nothing to the effect that they have searched) and then !voting 'delete' based on that trust (quite aside from the fact that the nominator's statement on this article makes no freaking sense at all "This article fails the WP:GNG as it hasn't competed at a national club level"), This AfD for 5 separate articles has three total delete !votes, and I'm pretty sure that nobody (with the possible exception of SportingFlyer) has done any sort of search for sources for additional coverage. You claim that the topics don't meet the WP:GNG, but if you haven't searched you can't possibly know that. The GNG doesn't consider only the sourcing in the article, it also considers all other sources that might be available (and if you haven't even bothered to look, how the heck are you supposed to know?).

@Govvy: so you don't even bother to try a quick google search? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 14:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whats with you? Why are you so mad? Why are you assuming I haven't done a google search, where is your evidence for that? To start with, never expect every person to run web searches, you are not winning any points here, I don't like this argumentative approach you have chosen. There are multiple clues here and wording is key to notability guidelines. Amateur leagues for one, like non-league football requires greater source verification to pass basic GNG. Clubs can't simply be added to wikipedia because they were created yesterday, last week or three years ago. I don't see the coverage for these teams, I don't see anything you have contribute here to change my mind. So I will stick with what I know, and the articles fails multiple guidelines. Govvy (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone (Insertcleverphrasehere) has clearly never heard of WP:AGF... Giant Snowman 14:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: you specifically stated above that you didn't think a search was necessary, this is disappointing, because foreign topics are already difficult to find sources for, but if nobody searches and is simply willing to !vote delete based on the current sourcing in the article, then it contributes to systemic bias in the wiki. @Govvy: If my comments came across as 'mad' that was not my intention; perhaps you have done a search, but I would have expected you to say so in this diff if so. I apologise for misinterpreting that, but feel free to correct me. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 15:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Insertcleverphrasehere: GNG candy? What the heck does that mean? The articles I mentioned at least have sources - I haven't tried to read them/translate them - but they're not necessarily unsourced. SportingFlyer talk 22:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify; in my opinion (based on other club AfDs that you have participated in) you have a tendency to overestimate the 'significant coverage' aspect of sources when assessing a source for meeting the GNG requirements. This criteria is of course subjective, but it means that I generally have to double check whenever you say something meets the GNG (or "has a chance of meeting"). I'd suggest using google chrome, as it has a built in 'translate this page' feature that makes machine translation of foreign sources trivial. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. After a search for the English and Thai names, I can't find anything but routine coverage for any of the clubs. There are a few brief mentions of Thonburi University F.C. here here and here. And there is a bit of routine coverage of Ayodhya City F.C. here. Pad Siam F.C. is covered here but I couldn't find anything else. I couldn't find much of anything for the others except appearance in listings such as this and this, which don't contribute to notability. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 15:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: These really should have been nominated separately. Since not meeting the GNG is the main argument here, each subject will need to be individually assessed. Suggest procedurally closing the latter four and re-nominating if appropriate. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some brief Google searches reveal the following. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- For Ayodhya City F.C., A single article on supersubthailand.com, a minor football website.[1]
- For Sing Rakhangthong Muangkan F.C., a two-minute scoop by SMMTV, a satellite channel.[2]
- For Mahidol University Sport Science F.C., two paragraphs in an article covering all the teams in the Amateur League on FourFourTwo.com,[3] a Mahidol University press release regarding their championship of the 2015 Ngor Royal Cup.[4]
- For Pad Siam F.C., a three-minute morning news scoop by Nation TV, a national news channel.[5]
- For Thonburi University F.C., two paragraphs in the same FourFourTwo article.[6]

Good work finding that FourFourTwo article, but I don't think that would meet 'significant coverage' requirements for these clubs individually. It is probably a great source for the League article though. Probably the only source among what you and I found that meets WP:SIGCOV is the one for Pad Siam F.C., but I can't find another source for that club. So long as we do searches for all the articles, we shouldn't need to start individual AfDs for all of them (this is what I was trying to get at above, but it seems I wasn't clear enough and rubbed some other editors the wrong way). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:00, 19 October 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.