Wikipedia

Draft talk:Gibraltar Wave F.C.

Latest comment: 5 months ago by 93.199.60.7 in topic In-depth response per request
Learn more about this page
WikiProject iconFootball Draft‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
DraftThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconWomen's sport Draft‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Women's sport (and women in sports), a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of women in sports on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportTemplate:WikiProject Women's sportWomen's sport articles
DraftThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconGibraltar Draft‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Gibraltar, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gibraltar and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GibraltarWikipedia:WikiProject GibraltarTemplate:WikiProject GibraltarGibraltar articles
DraftThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

In-depth response per request edit

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@StrangeBrotherhood, you sent me an email requesting a more in-depth response to the rejection of this draft.

There are multiple reasons why this draft fails to meet Wikipedia standards, including wholly unsourced sections (Kits, Kit suppliers, Current squad, Kit deals, current squad, Club staff) (everything in a Wikipedia article must be verfiable, and that requires sources), cases of too much information that borders on advertisement (Kit suppliers), and references that do not demonstrate notability. It is this latter problem, and a continuing failure to rectify it, that led to the rejection of this draft.

Notability is pretty abstract, and there are specific requirements for articles about organizations. The general notability guidelines state that for a subject to be considered notable, it has to receive significant coverage in sources that have reputation for reliability and independence. In this case, significant coverage means that sources are specifically about the team, not passing mentions. This coverage cannot be recaps of matches/tournaments; such coverage is considered routine coverage and the community has determined that routine coverage does not show notability.

In your email to me, you said, I have checked the requirements but I cannot see anything why it is not worth having an article about a club which plays internationally and is a member of the ECA. Can you please tell me, why you have rejected to draft? To respond to that specifically, playing internationally and being part of a larger governing organization do not automatically mean a club is notable. It must meet the requirements of the notability guidelines, and it is up to the draft submitter to demonstrate that the subject meets those guidelines. I would gently suggest you read through those guidelines again.

Looking at your sources you have:

  1. an article about the team starting that is a routine announcement of a new organization, but may confer some notability
  2. an article about the team naming a new coach, which is routine coverage
  3. a press release, which is a primary source and does not demonstrate notability
  4. a press release, which is a primary source and does not demonstrate notability
  5. an article recapping opening weekend, which is routine coverage
  6. a press release, which is a primary source and does not demonstrate notability
  7. a self-aggrandizing advertorial written by club founder John Gontier, which is a primary source and does not demonstrate notability
  8. a tournament roundup which is routine coverage
  9. a tournament roundup which is routine coverage
  10. a press release, which is a primary source and does not demonstrate notability
  11. a self-aggrandizing advertorial written by club founder John Gontier, which is a primary source and does not demonstrate notability
  12. a press release, which is a primary source and does not demonstrate notability

At best, there is one source (the Chronicle article about the founding of the team) that contributes to notability, and even that contribution is minor. The sources used in this draft are primarily routine coverage or press releases written by the owner/team/governing organization, none of which show notability and in the case of anything written by the founder, are of dubious reliability. To pass Articles for Creation, the draft must be supported by reliable sources that are about the article subject and are not game recaps. It's a high bar to clear for a reason, and though I see other teams in the league have articles, that does not mean that this team should have one if it can't be shown to meet the requirements for an article.

I hope that is helpful. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot for this clarification.That really helps.
In the meanwhile I have found this: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar_Wave_FC
This is a very short article. How can it be that this is not a draft?
Would it mean adding all valid information such as kits would make this article not notable anymore?
How can it be that in Dutch it works and in English it is not valid?
Can you give me your thoughts about it please? 93.199.60.7 (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk:Gibraltar_Wave_F.C.&oldid=1188595059"