Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luca Soccer Club (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Fenix down (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Luca Soccer Club
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Im renominating this again as I believe the last AFD was not properly discussed. Below I list the reasons
 * The club fails NFOOTY as it hasnt played in any fully professional leagues listed by wikiproject football. Kerala Premier League is not a fully professional league. It is played by teams like Kerala Police which is not even a football club. Here the players serve as the police officers in Kerala Police.
 * Failing NFOOTY means it has to pass general GNG criteria. The present sources are not enogh to meet GNG in my criteria.
 * User who voted as keep in previous account is clearly a single purpose account. Their first edit is the keep vote in the first AFD.  After 20 August they have made no edit. I would like to suggest a detailed discussion here as the previous one was not properly done. Indianfootball98 (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Indianfootball98 (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Indianfootball98 (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Indianfootball98 (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: Fails NFOOTY as per the nom. Regarding GNG, my analysis of the 11 sources in the article are listed below.
 * Source 1: Just a news report about Kerala Premier League.
 * Source 2: Club website
 * Source 3: Interview with club CEO
 * Source 4: Routine Coverage and not a reliable source
 * Source 5: Have some coverage but not from a reliable source
 * Source 6: Routine coverage and the bridge is not a reliable source
 * Source 7: Incidental coverage about foreign investment
 * Source 8: Interview and not from a reliable source
 * Source 9: Club website
 * Source 10: News about foreign signings by the club
 * Source 11: Website of club owners
 * From this it is evident that the clubs fails GNG. Henriklars (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 06:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: Clearly fails GNG citeria based on the source analysis by . The Footballean (talk) 08:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per comments in last month's (!!!) AFD. GiantSnowman 17:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: the club is so irrelevant we dont even know the full names of the players????Muur (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: I was not happy with the previous discussion. The club fails NFOOTY as well as GNG. The present sources are not good enough to meet GNG. Poppi fied  talk 20:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - this nomination is borderline disruptive. Nominating something for deletion a month (a month!) after the last AFD because you didn't like the result is just silly. And its exactly what we have WP:DRV for. The analysis of sources above is disingenuous; there's nothing wrong with interviews and there's no analysis of why different sources are apparently "unreliable". The sources highlighted in the last AFD (a random sample of the sources included in the article) show this passes GNG. NFOOTY might be helpful for defining secondary criteria that allows a person or club that otherwise doesn't meet GNG to instead meet arbitrary subject-specific criteria. In this case, NFOOTY is irrelevant, and !votes that rely on it (and the disruptive nomination) should be disregarded, and this should be closed.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 09:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Let me clarify my statements. I am really concerned with significant coverage here. As per WP:SIGCOV, significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. I will try to explain how the article doesnt satisfy SIGCOV. There are 11 sources in the article out of which 3 are not independent ones. The 4th citation from Spotik is only a short paragraph. The first citation is about the Kerala Premier League. The 6th citation is an incidential coverage regarding clubs withdrawal from the league de to Covid 19. Another one is about a player signing. All these only gives routine coverage. So how can we say the club is passing GNG. Two sources seems good here. But they are not secondary sources. As per WP:PSTS, secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. Here these two citations are interviews with the club's CEO which makes them primary sources. Indianfootball98 (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it makes that portion of the content within those sources a primary source for the purposes of verifying information in the article. The CEO didn't interview himself, decide the questions being asked, or publish the interview on his own website. An independent journalist has decided he is noteworthy enough to be interviewed (about the club), and has retained editorial oversight with regard to what is published. Your suggestion that otherwise reliable sources should be treated as being not independent because of a format choice is the "novel interpretation". If "two sources seem good here" then it passes WP:GNG. Besides which, short paragraphs and articles about the club's operations (as distinct from efforts by the club to promote itself) show that reliable sources have deemed the subject important enough to cover. And you still haven't addressed the nature of this nomination; the contribution of one SPA doesn't invalidate an AFD result, nor does it invalidate DRV's role in the deletion review process.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 02:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: I'm against the opinion that this nomination is disruptive. It's evident that the previous AfD nomination wasn't properly discussed. The sources cited in the article doesn't help the article to meet either GNG or FOOTYN. The included sources are just random ones like player signings and club takeovers. This article clearly fails FOOTYN, and must be taken down from the mainspace.  Ken Tony  Shall we discuss? 13:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Then it should be taken to WP:DRV. WP:RENOM: "If the XfD discussion was closed as “keep”, generally do not renominate the page for at least six months, unless there is something new to say, and even so, usually wait a few months." Waiting just one month is incredibly poor form.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 06:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , this is a valid point. - Hatchens (talk) 09:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - meets GNG with numerous sources, including five I just found, one, two, three, four, and five - . And then there's the procedural issues ... why no DRV? Nfitz (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Except the citation from Indian Express (which is also giving routine coverage)the remaining are the same ones already present in the article. Still the article fails GNG


 * Comment - I've listed this at DRV so that the last close can be reviewed (as should have happened instead of this immediate renomination).  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 06:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment:If the majority of the participants are leaning towards delete, whats the point of opening a DRV. Indianfootball98 (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You have it backwards my friend. This should never have been opened. The fact that "participants are leaning towards delete" is more about people clinging to NFOOTY when that guideline is irrelevant if the subject passes GNG.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Henriklars's analysis of sources calls some of them unreliable. Specialist websites such as https://khelnow.com/ and The Bridge can be notable, and https://khelnow.com/ and The Bridge both seems to be reasonably professional. I agree that the club's own website and that of its owners is not independent. Even routine coverage can add up to in-depth coverage, and foreign signings are a sign that the club recognizes that it needs international talent to compete and is prepared to pay for it. As for Muur's point about surnames, many football players adopt what actors would call stage names, which may have been what happened here. I would add that this AFD should not have been begun less than 6 months after the previous one closed as keep. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ah yes, 30 people who all just happen to go by a stage name. do you not see how ridiculous that is?Muur (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - per comments and discussions in the last AFD, per the fact that this should not have been renominated, and per vapid "analysis" of sources above. Interviews are not automatically not independent because the interviewee is connected to the subject. The journalist and publication (the actual source) are still independent. The sources included in the article are coverage of the subject club; the fact that some of them cover operations that are normal for a football club does not mean they are WP:ROUTINE (which covers things like statutory announcements and sports scores). The fact that something was announced by the club and then the subject of coverage by reliable sources does not make it the sort of announcement ROUTINE is talking about. The subject need not pass WP:NFOOTY if it already passes WP:GNG so arguments as to the professionalism of the league and other arbitrary football-specific criteria are irrelevant. As are arguments about not knowing the names of players; we're not discussing their notability and the club doesn't inherit notability from them any more than they from it.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Refer to DRV, which is the correct venue for appealing a "keep" closure last month.—S Marshall T/C 18:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It was, but that has now been closed. Does someone want to procedurally close this too?  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That would be weird because then it would be discussed nowhere. This should probably run its course now but it'll likely end up at DRV no matter which side this discussion falls on.—S Marshall T/C 08:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: The club doesnt have indepth coverage from the citations. Fails the WP:GNG criteria. Lorenzo the great (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Above; I supported on "XFD renomination" statement. But, I cannot understand this - "The subject need not pass WP:NFOOTY if it already passes WP:GNG so arguments as to the professionalism of the league and other arbitrary football-specific criteria are irrelevant". A question for Stalwart111 - Does this club passed GNG in the first place? Do you ever read wikipedia guidelines properly? or do you have an habit to make such interpretation which sometimes look extremely brilliant and as discussion progresses... they suddenly sounds extremely stupid or compromised one. I'm least bothered about the outcome of this AfD, but I'm seriously concerned about your poor interpretation of guidelines which I've witnessed in an another ongoing AfD. -Hatchens (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As I explained there, my argument is that WP:GNG should apply because WP:GNG is our baseline notability criteria. My argument is the same there. It doesn't matter if this club doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY, because it already passes WP:GNG. And it doesn't matter if that sporting team isn't considered a sporting team or doesn't pass WP:NCORP, because it already passes WP:GNG. It's pretty simply, really. As a side note, I'm pleased you've decided to let your personal attacks and bad faith ooze from one AFD to another. It's disgusting there and equally unbecoming here.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , wait... according to your interpretation; does this club passses WP:GNG? - Hatchens (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. I said so above, as have others.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , I surrendered! Thank you. - Hatchens (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete as it fails WP:GNG - No credible/independent media citations as per WP:RS, Lack significant coverage WP:SIGCOV. Since it fails in GNG, lets assess it under WP:NFOOTY as an SNG - The club is not part of any national league (of India) or any professional league as per WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues. It fails to qualify under NFOOTY too. Note: When an entity fails to qualify under WP:GNG, the best alternative is find an appropriate WP:SNG or WikiProject guidelines for the assessment - not vice versa. However, there is a possibility for this club to have a Wikipedia page (in the near future)- under the WP:NFOOTY as soon as they qualify for I-League 1 or any national leagues. -Hatchens (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * To the nominator; - please avoid renominating page which had just passed through an AfD. If you have any suggestions or something you would like to discuss within 6 months of keep, then please follow the WP:DRV route, thats the correct venue. Closing admin should take note on this too. - Hatchens (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Noted down the point since this AFD. Indianfootball98 (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And the closing admin should take note of the obviously pointy nature of Hatchens' !vote here.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:18, 19 September 2021 (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.