Template:Did you know nominations/Real Kakamora F.C.

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Schwede66 talk 23:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Real Kakamora F.C.

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that football club Real Kakamora lost all 22 of their matches in the 2023 Telekom S-League season, making it one of the worst seasons by a professional football club in the top-flight of a country? Source: https://www.sofascore.com/team/football/fc-real-kakamora/371197
  • Reviewed:

Created by KillaTrav87 (talk). Self-nominated at 20:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Real Kakamora F.C.; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• The article has a citation needed tag that needs to be addressed before this can be approved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

DYKcheck shows that the article was actually created back in 2012, meaning the article should be treated not as a new creation but as a 5x expansion, which the tool confirms was done on time. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Right now I am unable to do a copyvio check due to technical issues, so for now, I can also add that no QPQ is needed as this is the nominator's first nomination. The hook is the issue here. The hook talks about it being "one of the worst seasons by a professional football club in the top-flight of a country", the article says instead that it had "the statistical worst season of the modern era of professional football", a statement that does not have a source. The hook wording and sourcing issues have to be addressed before this can be approved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - According to the nominator's talk page, they are an employee of the subject, which would make this a WP:COI case. I'm not sure how that would affect the nomination, but I'm just mentioning it for transparency purposes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Bigly, is how how this would affect the nomination. An article in which a major contributor has a close connection to its subject would deserve {{COI}}, which would disqualify it here. I need longer to assess the damage.--Launchballer 12:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

pinged here offwiki Not true, COI editors are allowed to contribute to DYK, and plenty do so constructively. A disclosed COI isn't a disqualifier unless the community says it is by RfC. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer: How has the check been? Per the above comment, a COI itself may not necessarily be an issue as long as it was disclosed, but a check of the article content to see if everything is alright might still be needed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I mean, to be fair, that was not a positive article by any stretch of the imagination. I've taken out a number of 'the team have not' claims, as they could date, and I've put the article in chronological order. I would not look at this and think 'an employee wrote this', so I think this is fine. (I also note somewhat sheepishly that {{COI}} does not appear at Wikipedia:Template index/Disputes, so perhaps I should have checked before I got here.)--Launchballer 10:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Full review needed. I note that KillaTrav87 has not edited since 17 March.--Launchballer 07:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• The issue here is that the hook is only partially supported by either the article or the source: it appears true that they did lose all their matches that season, but neither the "one of the world's worst seasons" nor the "a league known for a lack of quality" claims are mentioned anywhere in either the article source or the link given here. Coupled with the fact that the nominator is not currently editing and there does not appear to be a path forward for this nomination at this time. Having said that, if this nomination is to continue, we could go with an alternate angle, which is:

ALT1 ... that Real Kakamora F.C. joined the Solomon Islands' Telekom S-League in 2011 as a last-minute replacement after another club withdrew on religious grounds?

In this case, the interesting part to me is the withdrawal on religious grounds aspect, which is unusual. And unlike ALT0, it is actually supported by its source. However, unless the other issues are resolved, the nomination may not have a path forward. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

ALT1 is cited, short enough, and interesting.--Launchballer 10:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. @Launchballer: Will you be able to address the other article concerns? Though in such a case we may need a third editor to sign ALT1 off. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I've just taken those two claims out, but I just noticed that my earlier copyedit took it below 5x anyway. I've left a note on their talk page inviting them to return.--Launchballer 10:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

if it doesn’t qualify after cleanup and the nominator has stopped editing, I suggest we mark this as unsuccessful and move on. Schwede66 18:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. If they return in a reasonable amount of time, this can be reopened, but for now, this should probably be closed.--Launchballer 22:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)