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. – Joe (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Soccer Club[edit]

Luca Soccer Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable football club. Lacks sigcov. Poppified talk 05:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Poppified talk 05:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Poppified talk 05:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Poppified talk 05:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Stalwart111: Hello , Both these sources maybe giving coverage but I don't think so these are from a reliable sources. YouTube video about the program I don't think it's part of a mainstream radio channel. Nextly they only played KPL which is an ameature tournament not an extablished tournament.Thanks Poppified talk 11:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, where they have played and whether or not they are professional is unrelated to WP:GNG, though the article asserts they are a professional team and multiple other teams in the league are professional teams also. And yeah, its the official YouTube channel of a commercial radio show with an FM frequency; that's enough for me. Besides which, I just picked a few sources at random and found WP:GNG. So I'd need to be convinced they aren't significant coverage, and that all of the others should be ignored. Stlwart111 11:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Stalwart111: I think I ended up making a false decision on taking this to articles for deletion. I think it is better to take the request back.Thanks Poppified talk 11:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can withdraw the nomination, but now that there is another delete !vote from GiantSnowman it probably can't be closed as speedy keep. I have tagged GS in case our discussion and your withdrawal is sufficient for him to amend his !vote. Stlwart111 22:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Stalwart111: I think after we got different votes here let's wait for others to give their opinion. I think my withdrawal will be childish if I withdraw this discussion right now.ThanksPoppified talk 05:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sensible. It's also unlikely to be speedy-keep closed with a valid deletion !vote in place, even if you were to withdraw the nomination. Stlwart111 05:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I an unwilling to change my !vote and the discussion cannot be speedy closed with valid delete !votes, sorry. GiantSnowman 17:38, 5 August 2021 (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.