Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.C. Porto (boxing)

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 Delete the boxing article, no consensus on the basketball article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

F.C. Porto (boxing)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Boxing club with no significant independent coverage or claim of notability. Jakejr (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it also lacks significant independent non-routine coverage.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Boxing/Weak keep basketball There are several articles of minor sports affiliates of the larger notable football club most of which do not need their own article. The only reason for existence seems to be template fill. At the most they can be lumped into a single article or even a small section to the main F.C. Porto article. The basketball article is a possible exception.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge with the main Porto article. Not every part of a sporting club is notable. Seasider91 (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete FC Porto (basketball team) is one of the most notable basketball teams in Portugal and almost every team in the country has it's own page, besides Porto has other sports like handball or roller hockey and each has it's own pages. Tesd52 (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea is that all those other Porto sports with their own pages should not have their own pages. Individually they have not been shown to be notable.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, but if you see other clubs pages like Sporting CP, SL Benfica or Vitória SC for example, they have separate pages aside from the main page for their other sports, this being in Portugal, because the same happens in pages from spanish or turkish clubs. So i ask again for you guys to reconsider about this subject. Tesd52 (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These articles about other FC Porto sports teams don't have the sources required to meet GNG--especially the two I put up. The boxing club's only source is its own web page and the basketball team's source is a report on one game. This seems like WP:NOTINHERITED where these other teams are claiming they're notable because they're connected to the football team. Jakejr (talk) 12:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And of course there is WP:Other stuff exists. These other clubs may need to be changed also.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the basketball page is an important part of the club heritage. Im a FC Porto fan and since I was little i've seen the basketball team play, there is information about the team in online newspapers or other websites and even about the european competitions that the team participated in Wikipédia so is not very hard to even make a better page. Again I understand your point, but you need to see that there are some sports that belong to a football team that can make their own history and deserve to have a page of their own. Im sorry for being kind of annoying but you need to understand my point of view as fan of the team, cheers. Tesd52 (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tesd52 I see the basketball page has one reference - it would help if a few more could be added to the page. In that case the Basketball page would probably survive. The boxing page has only one primary reference.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will try my best to make a better page and add more references to it. Thanks for the patience and the advice. Tesd52 (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There should be a separate discussion for the basketball section if notability is the issue here. And I really fail to see why it is considered non-notable. The club has won the national championship and participated in European cup competitions several times (note that the database only goes back to 1992). If the national boxing championships can be verified, I'd consider that section notable enough as well. There's no need to overcrowd the main article. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still not seeing significant independent coverage for either of these. Jakejr (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me get this straight: A team of such merits is way above the notability threshold. It competed at the highest stage possible in European club basketball, the FIBA Euroleague (though not necessarily successfully...). So what solution would you propose: Merge it to the already extensive main article? Cut unreferenced statements? It can't be about just deleting the whole article. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or how about just adding some reliable third party references to the article. If they are a notable sports team that should not be that difficult.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for what? The bare info of having participated in that competition? This is the kind of trivial info usually not backed up by individual references. I've already included an external link to the FIBA Europe's website, which isn't much but enough to prove at least that. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete boxing I would also vote to delete the basketball article as it now stands. I have no idea what it means to be the club boxing champion of Portugal, so it's hard for me to evaluate the significance of this achievement. However, it is easy for me to evaluate an article with no secondary sources. If someone produces independent sources for the basketball team that are not just routine sports coverage, then the article can be kept. As for the other sports, some of them look to be lacking in good sources, but that's a discussion for another day. I have no objection to the individual sports teams of this club having articles, if they have the coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both The boxing article has no independent sources and the basketball's sources are a report on a game and a listing of standings. Neither of these show significant coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The main page already has to much information and if we delete the pages we will have to put that information somewhere else besides F.C. Porto has other sports pages so we will have sports that have their own pages and the basketball and boxing teams won't it doenst make sense. Tesd52 (User talk:Tesd52) 16:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this isn't about (common) sense. Every little college team can have articles for each season which consist of nothing else than stats (so much on "routine sports coverage"), while a team which won several national titles and competed at continental level multiple times can be deemed non-notable out of sheer ignorance and bureaucratism. More and more I get the impression that the English wikipedia is just about mirroring the net. I think I'm going to stay away from it. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we stay out of this then people can do whatever they want to the pages, if tomorrow someone decides to erase all of the other F.C. Porto pages can they do it? There so many other pages that don't have and never will have single reference and nobody puts that into a debate, these sports are notable in Portugal and everybody that is associated with the club know them. For example Sporting Clube de Portugal has a lot of pages for their sports that are outdated and I never seen nobody complain, this is just and example because in many clubs the same goes. I will ask again instead of complaining about the pages why don't people work together to improve them? I still think that that's is what Wikipédia is all about, work together to make better articles and pages so that everyone can haver access to better information. Tesd52 (User talk:Tesd52) 19:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete boxing The argument for keeping these amounts to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Those voting keep simply need to post significant independent coverage. The discussion isn't about their existence, it's about their notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added references to the F.C. Porto (boxing) is this enough to keep the page? Tesd52 (User talk:Tesd52) 20:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @IP: No, this is about taking our own notability guidelines seriously. There's consensus that, when it comes to sports, having competed at a certain level always means meeting the GNG no matter what. Even an individual player who participated in such competitions (Euroleague, Saporta Cup etc.) would easily pass WP:NBASKETBALL. Now, all of a sudden (also note that this article has existed since 2006, has been edited by several people, is linked to from multiple other articles, and exists in seven other languages), as soon as someone claims that this article isn't consistent with the (very vaguely defined) GNG, that consensus no longer applies? You can keep singing that same old song as often as you want to, but this strange "meets specific guidelines but not the GNG" (though not used explicitly here, that's what it comes down to eventually) I've seen a lot doesn't make sense as long as the former are meant to be a specification of the latter. It's just completely and deliberately disruptive, and I'm honestly disgusted by the fact that no one else trying to find the best solution for these articles.
  - @Tesd52: Great, at least that's something. Judging a club's notability in an individual sport generally is a bit tricky, though. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 09:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks but I am a bit sad that no one is trying to improve the pages. I'm doing my best but I can't do everything by myself, I hope that you guys decide to maintain the pages we don't go anywhere if we decide to erase instead of improving. Tesd52 (User talk:Tesd52) 12:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added references to the two pages and I believe that it's enough for now so that in the future more references and articles can be added to improve it over time. Cheers Tesd52 (User talk:Tesd52) 16:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are now 6 sources for the boxing article--2 from the FC Porto site, 1 from the FC Porto Museum, 1 blog, 1 video, and 1 article about a fighter who happens to train at FC Porto with just a passing mention of the club. There is still no significant independent coverage of the boxing team itself. I'll admit the basketball article has been improved.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the boxing page, the page you say its from the museum its actually from a Porto newspaper not the club but the city itself, but what do you suggest that i put more in the page ? Tesd52 (User talk:Tesd52) 19:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Texto de Museu FC Porto" means the text is from the FC Porto museum regardless of where it appears.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more references i believe it is enough. Tesd52 (User talk:Tesd52) 00:10 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment I think there may be enough sources to show the basketball team is notable, especially since basketball results are team based. However, boxing is an individual sport and I strongly believe the sources given are inadequate to show the boxing club is notable. I see 3 primary sources, 2 blogs, 2 one line mentions (one under a video), and an article about an aspiring boxer which gives a passing mention to the club. Even the non independent and questionably reliable sources are just a list of a couple of fighters (juniors mainly) and their results with no real mention of the boxing club. Papaursa (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete boxing This article does not have the independent reliable sources required by WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.118.229.17 (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Request - I suspect the basketball club is notable, but is also suspect reliable sources are in Portuguese language. I have made a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portugal for some assistance checking Portuguese RSs. Can we hold off on deleting until we see if someone there can help? Rikster2 (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that this discussion has boiled down to the notability of the boxing club rather than the basketball team. Frankly, since this has been posted at the deletion discussions for Portugal for 3 weeks, I'd say there has been ample time to come up with significant reliable sources and so far none have been provided for the boxing club. Papaursa (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept the basketball team is notable, but not the boxing team.Mdtemp (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & merge both into the parent article. Arguing that the articles should exist because similar articles do is a really bad argument. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:14, 9 September 2014 (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.