Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dontan PCCM 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. I'm afraid some of the arguments in this AfD are off the mark. WP:FOOTYN is an essay; it says so in the banner at the top. Regardless of how it's viewed within the football project, such an essay cannot take the place of a more general notability guideline that is created with community input, and as such arguments based on FOOTYN can be given very limited weight. If this an accepted argument for European clubs, then the community should consider elevating FOOTYN to a guideline, but this discussion is not the place for that. No evidence has been presented to show that this club meets any other threshold for notability. Policy-based !votes to delete significantly outnumber those to keep, and thus I can only close this as delete. Vanamonde (talk) 10:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Dontan PCCM F.C.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unreferenced article about an amateur football club. Is probably notable (participated in Thai FA cup) but there are no sources to verify that. I followed WP:NCLUB on this and took it to AFD. &raquo; Shadowowl  &#124;  talk  19:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment I've added references for the FA Cup participation. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 10:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - playing in just the qualifying rounds for the national cup is insufficient. No evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 07:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:FOOTYN, has only played in the qualifying rounds of a national cup. No indication of wider GNG for this amateur side. Fenix down (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NRV, does not have notability and there's no evidence. Yanjipy (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:FOOTYN by playing in a national cup. There is no mention of qualifying rounds not counting whatsoever. The Thai Cup seemingly draws teams at random with league tier being ignored. Dontan have been unlucky to play in the QR twice while other teams of the same tier have been drawn straight into R1. Bad luck shouldn't be an excuse to delete.Dougal18 (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Played in the national cup per WP:FOOTYN. Just because it's called a "qualifying round" doesn't mean it's not a part of the national cup (being one of the last four teams in the amateur cup qualifies you for the preliminary round of the national cup.) SportingFlyer  talk  04:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per SportingFlyer and Dougal18. They have played as per this  in the 2018 Thai FA Cup.See little point in deleting it.Further per WP:FOOTYN Only Teams that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria.In this case this club is clearly  eligible to play in the Thai FA Cup as is the case as any team from Thai FA Cup: Levels 1 to 5 in the Thai football league system is eligible and this club is in Level 5.  Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Searching in Thai, I found zero sources providing in-depth coverage of the subject, thus failing the WP:GNG. WP:FOOTYN is a project-advice essay, not a policy or guideline. --Paul_012 (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes  04:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:FOOTYN. There is an interesting discussion above whether qualifying rounds count or not by FOOTYN. The source implies that qualifying rounds suffice. In fact even that it is unneeded. Just qualifying to play without playing in any capacity in the national cup is enough. Rule's first phrase: "All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria." (bold in source) This phrase seems to support the position of the delete supporters but remains somewhat ambiguous on qualifying rounds or what happens in other cases. Immediately after comes a second phrase that clarifies what happens in other cases: "Teams that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria." This phrase clearly defines the clubs that are not automatically notable. These are the clubs that were never eligible to compete in the national cup. gidonb (talk) 09:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've invited further input from WT:FOOTBALL here. GiantSnowman 14:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Playing in the qualifying rounds of a national cup is accepted as granting notability for Australian and English clubs, so not sure why it wouldn't ok here; I appreciate there are cups where thousands of teams can enter (like the Coupe de France), but this club has also played at the fourth level in the Thai pyramid, so they wouldn't appear to be non-entities. Number   5  7  14:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Clubs that have played in a national cup are considered notable per WP:FOOTYN. This was mentioned recently at Articles for deletion/White Ensign F.C. (2nd nomination) regarding English clubs. LTFC 95 (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't believe it is appropriate to read NFOOTY as granting a presumption of notability to every club which enters the qualifying rounds of a national cup competitions (particularly one like the Coupe de France as mentioned above), and a check of online English- and Thai-language sources indicates this club is not the subject of any significant coverage in reliable sources (just mentions of the club in match reports at best). It clearly fails the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete – as per WP:NRV, which supersedes any requirements laid out in WP:FOOTYN; the lack of verifiable evidence supplants any other discussion regarding this club. Clyde1998 (talk) 01:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think anyone is arguing it's unverifiable. It's clearly a Thai football team which plays in a cup - it's not as if we don't have anything to go on, just that the sourcing is mild at best, such as this article which appears to be a disciplinary proceeding: or its Facebook page, which could be used to flesh out the article even if it doesn't touch notability:  or proof it played in the cup:  (Note: I am translating these articles through Google Translate.) And a showing of the league it plays in:  SportingFlyer  talk  02:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment SNGs including WP:FOOTYN exist to provide for the inclusion of certain defined subjects that cannot immediately be shown to pass GNG. An SNG provides for a presumption of notability, not a presumption of non-notability An SNG cannot be used to exclude/delete an article when the subject passes GNG, but the reverse is patently absurd because that would negate the entire reason for the existence of SNGs .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Several editors above, including myself, do not read this SNG (NFOOTBALL) to include clubs that have only played in qualifying rounds - and accordingly compliance with the GNG ought to be considered (if not decisive). Jogurney (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think there's a very reasonable argument that can be made here that the "qualification round" is actually part of the cup, as teams from the amateur league have to qualify for the "qualification round" through their participation in the amateur leagues, and teams from divisions 2, 3, 4 enter in the qualification round. An analogous cup would be the 2018–19_Croatian_Football_Cup, where I would strongly argue the preliminary round would qualify for notability, since teams only participate in the tournament at all if they win their county cup, even though the top teams don't enter for another round. SportingFlyer  talk  03:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: All the keep !votes (a) appear to only cite WP:FOOTYN, which is an essay and not an accepted SNG, and (b) fail to provide any evidence that the subject satisfies the WP:GNG, which by default supersedes any SNG. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, if GNG trumps any SNG, what is the point of even having SNGs.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * SNGs are useful for when editors lack the time or expertise to search for and/or identify reliable sources relevant to the subject. For example, if no one here was able to read Thai, citing an SNG (though WP:FOOTYN is not one) might be appropriate, since we wouldn't be able to rule out the possibility of Thai sources covering the subject. However, that is not the case here. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You seem to have ruled out the possibility of in-depth sources covering the subject from your search - does this exclude the possibility of any local sources that aren't online? There's definitely enough sources available to have an article, even if there's relatively little non-primary significant coverage. SportingFlyer  talk  04:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If there were reliable sources that covered this subject, they would in all likelihood be general or sports news publications, most if not all of which have an online presence, as far as I know. In Thailand, there isn't a news culture that would produce such local coverage, especially for a remote place like Don Tan. Of course, one can't prove a negative, so I can't say that there's zero possibility. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * PS There's TV coverage as mentioned by Lerdsuwa below, though I wouldn't consider it particularly in-depth. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: The team's Youtube channel has videos captured from TV programs from SMMTV channel (the channel belong to a publicly traded company ). So there are some news coverage for the team. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Has played in the national cup. As such, is notable. Not sure what the issue is here. Smartyllama (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Essays by football invested editors in a walled garden do not trump our notability guidelines. WP:FOOTYN is NOT an SNG, WP:NFOOTY is. There is no SNG for teams, they must pass the GNG; this is clearly stated at Notability_(sports). —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  16:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete per nom. Not exactly the best reason to delete but it's a valid point Redditaddict69 (talk) (cont)   20:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage from multiple independent sources. Unfortunately, even the Thai Wikipedia article is unsourced.  Unswayed by those citing essay FOOTYN. Even if we assume a qualifier is part of the national cup, the essay makes an unfounded assumption that every country necessarily has reliable, independent, significant coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 08:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm willing to defend the assumption as most national cups generate local coverage. For instance, searching for Dontan PCCM brings up a number of mentions in directory listings of the FA Cup game, a number of youtube videos (including one of the FA Cup match, some of which appear secondary but I don't speak Thai), and even a "Did you know?" facebook post by the other (top division) team (used Google Translate.) Their Facebook feed is really good and I know it's primary, but since it's meant to advertise the club, it looks as if there may be some secondary coverage linked to on the Facebook page, especially 20 September 2016 it looks as if the club may have been profiled on SMM TV. The FA Cup game they were in definitely received some sort of television coverage from youtube. The article easily passes WP:V. I know we're probably a media source or two of significant coverage short at the moment, frustrated by the language barrier, but it's not as if an article about this club can't be written at all. A similar level of coverage exists for many teams playing in their national cup. SportingFlyer  talk  10:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Unless there are sources (probably Thai ones) which provide any method of passing WP:GNG, then this has to be deleted. There is no notability rule that says playing in a national cup infers automatic notability, regardless of what the FOOTYN essay says. Black Kite (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete The national cups include all sorts of teams, even the amateur ones, as the national cups are different from the league by definition, they give more opportunity to lower level teams too. In addition this team has never been participant in the Thai League, which is the only professional team in the list of the Fully professional leagues. Thus, it doesn't satisfy WP:NFOOTY. --1l2l3k (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NFOOTY is for players, not clubs. SportingFlyer  talk  21:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The Notability sports page also mentions teams, where it points toward the GNG. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  22:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes - and as I've demonstrated above, there's probably sources (especially Thai television sources, which are difficult to find) which make it probable this club passes WP:GNG. I know you've talked about the "walled garden" above, but a team playing in a national cup that fails WP:GNG is an exceptional case. SportingFlyer  talk  01:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.