Talk:Real Kakamora F.C.

Did you know nomination

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)

(

• Comment or view
• 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)

About Beachweak's edit.

The previous edit was true in its full entirety and sparked extreme controversy in the Solomon Islands football scene. This is the post in question https://www.instagram.com/p/DCZ8mQ2PKDD/?igsh=MTMzdXN1YnBiY3N0aA== and there are some more like it if you dig in the account, bearing in mind this is the official Real Kakamora Instagram page. @Beachweak 156.193.210.101 (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Claims such as this (and really any claims made on Wikipedia) need reliable, secondary sources along with them. Your edit had no such source and, at the time, appeared to be vandalism. If the edit was not vandalism and you were genuinely trying to be constructive, I apologise. You still need to cite any new content additions, though. Another user has left some instructions and info to go over relating to citations. Beachweak (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, please note you must maintain a neutral, encyclopaedic tone with new content additions. Beachweak (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Beachweak This wasn't exactly my edit, but rather the club community manager's and they don't really speak much good English so I apologise on their behalf for the tone. But as for the source I'm sure the post link will work? If it doesn't please inform me of what will. UnluckySane (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Also yes this is the IP you were talking to and the one that started this conversation, I just made an account and I'm sorry if that causes trouble. UnluckySane (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

It's no problem! It's good to know you want to make constructive edits. If the Instagram post originates from the club themselves, it falls under a primary source. While primary sources can be cited depending on the context, in this case it's not applicable because of the nature of the claims being made (these claims are quite serious and are about a third party). I suggest you find a third-party source that covers these events such as a news publication.

You can read more about what sources are and aren't acceptable at Wikipedia:Verifiability. Beachweak (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Beachweak Interesting, thank you! UnluckySane (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)