Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anah SC


 * 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 no consensus. and no indication any is forthcoming. No objection to a re-nomination explaining GNG is not met, if indeed that's the case. Star  Mississippi  17:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Anah SC

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Three seemingly arabic only language sources. Non-notable and non-verifiable. ♥ Th78blue (talk) ♥ 00:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football,  and Iraq.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Nomination rationale is indeed invalid. We currently have a procedural keep, but there is a delete vote, which is a vague wave. Another argument posits that GNG is met, without details. Hard to build consensus like this... Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 01:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep Non-English language sources do not make them non-credible, therefore this AfD should be closed regardless as the nominator's reasoning is invalid. The world does not revolve around the English language as many people seem to think it does. Seacactus 13 (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep passes GNG, nomination criteria not valid.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Comment this is a prime example of AfD going off the rails. This should have been a procedural keep because the nominator clearly misunderstood Wikipedia's rules on sourcing, believing that foreign language sources are sub-par. If the AfD remains open on the strength of 's !vote, then we're asking GiantSnowman to take on the responsibility of the nomination complete with the requirement to do a proper BEFORE (because no one else has apparently done one). For what it's worth, I think done properly this probably would be a delete, because looking at the references (auto-translating the first two) the first is very routine match-listing and the second doesn't appear to mention Anah, and is a long complaint that the local press and government weren't taking much notice of football anyway, which implies proper sources are going to be hard to find. Elemimele (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * the AFD rationale is not invalid, as falsely claims - "Non-notable and non-verifiable' is valid. The first part is correct, the second part is not. There is no significant coverage so it fails GNG. GiantSnowman 06:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment in the article, three sources mentioned Anah's participation in official tournaments with other clubs. There is also the Anah page on Goalzz.com that I refer to in the External Links section. I think this is enough to show the notability of the club. SonOfBasra (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.