Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thaworn Farm 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The result was Withdrawn. The result was for the article to be kept and I hereby consider my nomination to withdrawn. (non-admin closure)
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 00:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thaworn Farm 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)

Copying my nomination comment over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roi Et 2018 F.C.:

A fifth-tier amateur football club, references in the article are to seemingly unreliable sources, with one of them being a Facebook link and none of them being inline. Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:GNG, WP:ORG and—although it's an essay—WP:FOOTYN#Club notability.

Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 22:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC); 22:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 22:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 22:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 22:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 22:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Per Paul_012; I'm willing to trust that the news report says what he says it says, and that other sourcing exists, even if it isn't online. Once notable is always notable, even if they don't see any coverage from the internet age. The only problem is that we don't really have sources that we can use to cite an article, so even if notable, its difficult to justify a standalone article that can't be sourced. Delete Per nom. Can't find anything better in searches. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject's notability established in the 1980s. The Facebook link listed in the article is a recording of a Channel 3 programme with 4 minutes covering the club, describing them as one of the more famous teams of the era. Since their peak was over thirty years ago, most of the coverage they received would be in offline sources, which very likely exist. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This team doesn't pass. I think all amateur football club in the word don't pass. This team famous thai football team before modern computer born. If SshibumXZ can't listen Thai language, You may not chaotic.Aquaelfin (talk) 9:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Keep Per Paul 012. The TV programme in the reference show lots of pictures of team on old magazines covers, photos from newspaper. So offline coverage was indeed plenty in that era. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as above, likely notable. Giant Snowman 14:26, 13 September 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.