Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KingFut

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 keep. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KingFut[edit]

[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)

Other than some brief coverage of their partnerships with Juventus and Stoke City, I was unable to find any other coverage that would allow this topic to pass WP:NWEB or WP:GNG. Spiderone 17:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Beside that this was one of the first articles I've created here, I'm still not really aware what's wrong with it. KingFut are one of the most popular English-based websites that covers news about Egyptian and African football, and sometimes sports in general, and it's used in over 100 pages here on Wikipedia, so I don't think it would be a good idea to delete it here. I can of course try to improve it, but as I said I'm not really sure what's wrong with it. Thanks. Ben5218 (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:INHERENTWEB, even web content that editors personally believe is "important" or "famous" is only accepted as notable if it can be shown to have attracted notice. No web content is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of content it is. If the individual web content has received no or very little attention from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other web content of its type is commonly notable or merely because it exists. Also, many websites have been cited by others but don't necessarily meet Wikipedia standards on their own. Nobody is questioning whether KingFut is reliable. Its notability is what's being questioned. See JadranSport, Footballdatabase.eu and Soccerway. All fantastic websites but not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If you wish for this to be kept, please find reliable, independent sources that discuss the impact and influence of KingFut. Spiderone 18:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: Hmm, well obviously there are no articles that discusses such thing, even for other websites and not KingFut only. In this case, I guess these is nothing that can be done from my part. I'll accept the outcome of this discussion whether it was delete or keep, but personally I still believe that the reason mentioned above isn't enough for it to be deleted, so I'm voting to keep. Ben5218 (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, seems to have some notabilitiy and does have ties to relevant clubs.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 09:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there seems to be some coverage from secondary sources, and as already pointed out, it does have ties to notable clubs. LeBron4 (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article and sources include evidence of notability. gidonb (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2020 (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.