This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gaelic games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gaelic games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Gaelic gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Gaelic gamesTemplate:WikiProject Gaelic gamesGaelic games
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sport-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SportsWikipedia:WikiProject SportsTemplate:WikiProject Sportssports
Assess : newly added and existing articles, maybe nominate some good B-class articles for GA; independently assess some as A-class, regardless of GA status.
Hello, and thank you for reviewing the draft.
I’m seeking clarification on the critical difference between why this draft for Bright GFC was declined, while other similar club articles (linked within the draft) have been accepted and published. The content was developed with input from club officials, who have reviewed and supported its accuracy.
Although I’m based in Australia, I’ve been in direct email correspondence with the club, and they are keen to see their history and achievements documented on Wikipedia. I’ve made efforts to ensure the article adheres to core content policies, including neutrality, verifiability, and avoiding original research.
Could someone please advise on what specific improvements are needed to meet Wikipedia’s notability or sourcing standards? I’d appreciate any guidance to help bring this draft up to publication quality.
Thank you! Niallh26 (talk) 05:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya. Definitely the right call in opening this thread. Although you may wish to consider pinging the two AfC reviewers (@Jannatulbaqi: and @Rahmatula786:) who declined the draft.
From my perspective, while - yes - there is plenty of precedent for individual GAA clubs to be covered in standalone articles (and a significant percentage or majority of clubs are), this draft has been more than a little promotional from the outset. Acting as a form of WP:NOTWEBHOST. Where the text (whether deliberately or inadvertently) seems more focused on promoting the subject to the reader - rather than informing the reader. These types of additions (linking each of the club's social channels and adding uncited "milestones" which include the mainly [mediocre?] performances of junior and schoolboy teams in the 1960s) read more like NOTWEBHOST content. And do little to confirm notability. Which is what an AfC reviewer is looking for.
My own thoughts are that:
WP:NOTWEBHOST be kept in mind. Perhaps more than it has been. As much of the proposed content has had NOTWEBHOST overtones.
WP:CLUB be considered. As, if there club has had activities (and/or attention) at a national or international level, then an AfC reviewer can weigh this as contributing towards notability.
WP:GNG remains a significant issue. As, without evidence that the club "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", it is very difficult for an AfC reviewer to confirm notability.
As the Draft has since been moved to the mainspace, I have removed the PDF and the JPG "sources" which didn't support the text they were placed alongside. (Neither the linked PDF nor the image caption appear to mention the subject of this article at all.) The over-reliance on non-independent sources (and less-than-ideal sources like the Google Maps link) would ideally still be addressed. Guliolopez (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
