Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sociedad Deportiva Compostela (1962-2006)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge to SD Compostela. Vanamonde (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sociedad Deportiva Compostela (1962-2006)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Sociedad Deportiva Compostela (1962-2006) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created to reflect a purely legal and financial situation and in my opinion is an invalid though good faith WP:CONTENTFORK but I am not 100% sure. The club was in financial turmoil and was dissolved. The former president immediately formed a new club then bought the name of the old club and renamed the new club the same as the dissolved club using the same logo strip stadium and players. There are several other articles about clubs that were reformed in a similar manner such as Newport County A.F.C.. I believe that the best way to treat this is with a merge to the history section. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They are completely different societies. If it was valid to leave a club fall with a huge debt and create a new one taking all the credits (trophies, records, etc.), it would be a lack of respect with other teams that pay their players and suppliers. The new team had another name (Campus Stellae) when bought, then the former owner buys at the court auction of the dissolved team the name and changes the old name... Come on ! They are NOT the same club, they just have the same name (like New York Cosmos, for example)--Banderas (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Banderas (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
  • Comment Thé actual club makes no distinction in its history between the before 2006 and after 2006 and actually traces their history back to 1929. here. The sources are what matter not our personal opinions. We must not use wikipedia to right great wrongs Dom from Paris (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it's a valid fork - these are two separate teams, and we deal with these differently in different parts of the world (Vancouver Whitecaps, for instance, versus an Italian team since the Italian teams go bankrupt seemingly at will.) That being said, even if I'm incorrect, there's no possible reason to delete this - this should have been a merge request. SportingFlyer talk 21:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This was a copy paste and cut from another article. The content was already in the original article until it was removed otherwise I would have suggested a merge. The sources do not treat this as 2 separate teams so there is no need for 2 articles. What I'm suggesting is to go back to the status quo of an article that had been stable for 12 years. This was a very very bold move that seems to be more motivated by personal dislike than any source based information. It would be interesting to see how the Spanish football association treat the club. If they consider it as a club formed in 2006 then that would be a good argument. Dom from Paris (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at the Vancouver whitecaps and they had a 2 year period where they did not exist and then played for 14 years under another name so I don't think this is a fair comparison at all. Dom from Paris (talk) 21:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think it's a fair comparison to compare a team that went under and restarted (in MLS) with nearly the same ownership? Vancouver Whitecaps (disambiguation) In any case, the Spanish Wikipedia has the current club being founded in 2006, and a separate article for the defunct team: [1] - and the current owner paid €61,000 for the trophies of the old club. SportingFlyer talk 22:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nope not if there was a 14 year break in the use of the name. Please also remember that wiipedia is not a source. We should rely on what reliable sources use. If sources consider that it is the same club then so should we despite what has been decided on other projects or done on other pages Dom from Paris (talk) 05:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you understand my point - I'm talking specifically about the gap between the USL team in 2010 and MLS in 2011, not about the 14-year gap between the original team and the second team. But it's not a big deal. What's important is sources don't consider this the same club - the Spanish-language sources clearly note this team declared bankruptcy and had their trophies purchased back - and while I agree Wikipedia isn't a source, the Spanish-language wikipedia generally has better information on Spanish clubs than we have in English, so the fact they've segregated the clubs carries at least some weight. SportingFlyer talk 05:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok no it wasn't clear what you were referring to but as you say it doesn't really matter what is umpoimpor is the sources. Do you have access to any reliable sources that specifically say that the 2 clubs are not considered the same, the Spanish FA for example, or specialised sporting sources? The articles are seriously undersourced as it is. This article contains no references or links to the "new" club which seems to be very inappropriate and seeing the comments by the article creator a deliberate move. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Check this one out, where the new club was considered to have bought the "brand" of the old club and was not liable for its debts. Clearly different clubs: [2] SportingFlyer talk 07:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But what is interesting is that it says "se adjudicó la gestión deportiva de los equipos de fútbol de la SD Compostela SAD en liquidación", which according to google translate means ""was awarded the sports management of the football teams of the SD Compostela SAD in liquidation," which for me clearly shows that the teams continued under a different name. I think we really need to see what the Spanish FA say about this club. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear from the period articles the first team went bankrupt, a second team was founded (Campus Stellae) which then bought the name from the liquidated team, then there was a legal battle to try to get the new team to assume the debts of the old team, and the legal challenge failed. You also have this article, which explains the situation: new club formed by the old directors: [3] SportingFlyer talk 09:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Every specialist football source that I have found state that they were formed in 1962 and not 2006 and they consider the actual club and the old club are one and the same. Soccerway transfermarkt monde du foot world football les sports. By forking the content and stating that the actual club was formed in 2006 this is WP:OR or at best a WP:SYNTH of the sources. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, some of those may have used the content from the old Wikipedia article. I don't really trust any of those sources. SportingFlyer talk 09:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So which source do you base your !vote on? Dom from Paris (talk) 09:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep We have plenty or reformed clubs, I don't see a why this is consisted a content fork, however there is a serious issue of sources for both articles. That does need addressing but the two clubs do seem to pass WP:FOOTYN. Govvy (talk) 09:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources to back up the fact that they are considered 2 distinct clubs? All the sources I have been able to find state the opposite. Just because there are other articles on reformed clubs doesn't make this correct. The Spanish justice system stated that the new club was awarded the management of the actual teams and all the specialist sources state that the club was founded in 1962 and not 2006. if we leave the other article as it is the date of founding is not backed up by the sources. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That dependant on how you want to archive the information we have on wikipedia. Yes you can combine the two era's into one article. Financially they are considered two different organisations, if the new club is combining the history from the previous incarnation, maybe they should be merged. Govvy (talk) 09:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just the club itself but every source that I have been able to find state the actual club having been formed in 1962 and lists their competition history from that date to today. They are considered as 2 different organisations for financial reasons only but as a sporting entity there is continuity as backed up by the sources. So IMHO this fork is not warranted. --Dom from Paris (talk) 09:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - pinging Spanish football experts @MYS77 and Quite A Character: for their take/sources - are these two separate clubs or not? GiantSnowman 09:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - another comment to make it clear that they are different teams: in the 2005-06 season, BOTH teams competed. Former SD Compostela competes in the Preferente Autonómica de Galicia, while the new team (still named SD Campus Stellae), competes in the Tercera Autonómica de Galicia.--Banderas (talk) 10:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How can both teams have competed if SD Compostela was dissolved and SD Campus Stellae was created after the dissolution? Was it the same players that played for both teams? If they were competing at exactly the same time then yes it is 2 teams but if it was the same players competing under a different name then it is the same club with a different name. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SD Campus Stellae was not created after the dissolution. It was established in 2004 and started competing in 2005. They had nothing in common until SD Campus Stellae changed names, crest, etc in 2007-08. Each team had their own players.--Banderas (talk) 11:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so what I can understand from the El Correo article above is that Campus Stellae "compró en el proceso de liquidación solamente el nombre y los equipos del Compostela, y que eso no añadía asumir sus deudas" or if google translate is to be believed they "bought in the liquidation process only the name and teams of Compostela, and that did not include their debts" which means that the teams and the name did not disappear but were held by Campus Stellae which was then renamed CD Compostela. This means that the teams carried on playing under another name for a short period (do you know how long?) but retained their history back to 1962. From what I can gather it was CD Compostela SAD that went into liquidation. This SAD was created in 1992 in compliance with Spanish law but retained the history of the former entity which I presume was a kind of non commercial association. If this SAD could inherite the history of the former entity why can't this be carried on when the teams and name are bought by another SAD? This seems to be the position of the actual club and the different sources I have found. What I can't seem to find is the Spanish FA's position on the club. If they give a date for formation then in my view there is no debate at all. If they say 2006 I will happily withdraw my nomination but if they say 1962 then it should be a clear delete and remerge of the information removed. --Dom from Paris (talk) 12:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What they bought in the court auction were "los derechos deportivos" (besides name and brands), that is, the spots in the leagues left by the dissolved society (SAD). Not the teams, but their rights to play in Preferente league. S.D. Campus Stellae, established in 2004, changed names and kept playing, while SD Compostela, established 1962, was dissolved. They have different register number in the Federation, of course. I forgot to explain the other question: the conversion from "club" to "SAD" in 1992 was mandatory for all professional clubs and was just a legal shareholders system change of the same society (same ID -CIF in Spain-). Nothing to do with establishing a new club (SD Campus Stellae) and later change his name for another name previously used by another club (different IDs).--Banderas (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct approach, IMO, would be dividing the season-by-season, detailing the differences in the "history" section, but keeping all the content at SD Compostela only. RCD Mallorca B was founded as UD Collerense, but the club was "separated" from Mallorca and formed a new club. Still, all their seasons before the separation are added into Mallorca B's article. CF Platges de Calvià was founded in 1990, but in 2016 merged with CD Montuiri, and the original club became its B-side (very confusing indeed); the historical websites add Montuiri's historical seasons to the "new" Platges de Calvià, while their seasons before 2016 are linked to the B-team. MYS77 ✉ 15:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of the links you mention (La Futbolteca), states clearly:

  • Fecha de constitución: 2004 (establishement year)
  • Fecha de federación: 2007 (football federation member since)

If you are going to believe official websites, then Malaga CF was established in 1904... (totally false).--Banderas (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a merge is very different from a bankruptcy/refounding, or a refounding generally. Like the Whitecaps MLS team, which is different than their USL team, they assumed the old team's intellectual property. I think the new Whitecaps try to claim they're one of the oldest soccer clubs in Canada as well! SportingFlyer talk 20:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, according to both articles, both teams played in the 2005-06 season. SportingFlyer talk 20:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Banderas: "Official websites are totally false"... okay then. I think this is enough to answer this thread. The user who did this claims that official websites are, like he said, totally false. Do I have to say anything more than that? MYS77 ✉ 22:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MYS77: I didn´t say all official websites have false information, but some do, like Málaga CF's site (the one I mentioned as an example), where they claim to have been established in 1904. If you also think Málaga CF can be considered the same team as CD Malaga, and founded in 1904, I understand you considering SD Campus Stellae the same team as SD Compostela. No problem, but we don´t agree.--Banderas (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of the links you provided, futbol-regional.es has incorrect information, and the other one appears to be a -pedia. Furthermore, clubs at times aren't the best sources of their own history - see Dinamo Zagreb for another example of appropriated history. What we do know is - at the time the old club went bankrupt, the new club was already playing and bought their brand. SportingFlyer talk 09:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: I didn't see the incorrect info in that website. Can you please point me some? And I didn't explain the true context of Spanish football clubs to you guys, who (I believe) are more used to English football. SD Compostela's board declared the club bankrupt and started the liquidation process in 2004. In that very same year, knowing that the club would be dissolved soon, they just created a "new club" (more like a proxy, in my opinion) to continue the "legacy" of Compostela without having to pay their debts. If you take a look at some other clubs (like Málaga CF for an example), it somehow happens quite normally in Spain, where the "new club" "inherits" the history of the older one. And yes, it's impossible for both clubs to play in the same division under the same name, that's why they created the club as Campus Stellae.
This article from Marca states that "Campus Stellae recovered the name and the rights of its antecessor through a public auction". In my point of view, this states that the "new club" obtained the rights and the name (bringing back the history) of the old club. MYS77 ✉ 17:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Banderas: That's because Málaga CF's board won an auction to give their past history to the "new club", which means that the "new club" can use this information legally. The same thing happened with Campus Stellae, which means that the RFEF will associate both clubs as one (even though they still have different IDs), that's why the legal challenge was taken later to make the "new club" pay the older club's debts. This article from La Voz de Galicia says that "Pero el proceloso concurso del Compos ha sido tan singular que el equipo sigue compitiendo, aunque sea en Preferente y con la denominación de Campus Stellae. (But the stormy contest of Compos has been so singular that the team is still playing, even though it is in the Preferente and under the name of Campus Stellae.)". In my opinion, Spanish football laws can be very confusing and unclear, but I honestly don't think separating both clubs would do any good or would be correct. MYS77 ✉ 17:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MYS77: That's not so. Malaga's teams are and always will be different. No legal issue there. LFP makes it clear (2 teams, Malaga CF and CD Malaga in the listings), no matter what they claim on their website. Compostela's case is a little different as they bought the old brands, but, again, different teams under all means . --Banderas (talk) 19:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Banderas: Still can't agree to your points (as you can't agree with mine as well xD). MYS77 ✉ 19:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What's even more confusing is it seems Campus Stellae played for a few seasons in the fifth division under the name Campus Stellae, even after they purchased the SD Compostela name. SportingFlyer talk 23:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I may be wrong but as they seem to have kept the name for the women's team would they not have kept the name for the teams already playing in lower divisions?. This may also explain why both teams were playing in the same division, a sort of A team and B team? Dom from Paris (talk) 05:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Domdeparis: The womens team was created years later. In 2005-06 they were totally independent clubs, as they have always been, SD Campus Stellae played at the lowest league (Tercera Autonómica), as it was their first playing season, while SD Compostela played at Preferente Autonómica after relegation.--Banderas (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back: what @MYS77: said, word for word. --Quite A Character (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree with the outcome, but a somewhat similar situation was discussed here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_109#Darlington_F.C. SportingFlyer talk 09:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge After the comments and reviewing the articles, I think merge is the best way forward. Govvy (talk) 09:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also want to note there is no consensus on how to deal with this: while Darlington was merged back when they changed their name, other phoenix clubs with the same name (Maidstone United, Accrington Stanley) have their own articles. My strong opinion is to treat the clubs separately, especially since they played the 2004-05(?) season as separate teams. SportingFlyer talk 23:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that all clubs have to be dealt with on an ad hoc basis. From what I can gather Maidstone was forced out of the league and the teams could no longer participate in the competitions which is (from what I can gather) not the case for this club. So Maidstone as a league club ceased to exist so logically 2 pages seems appropriate. The new Accrington Stanley club was formed 2 years after the demise of the old club they play in a different stadium, on their web site they do not claim to have inherited the previous seasons and honours they only talk about the name being one of the oldest in English football this is not really comparable to the subject of this AfD. Looking for aawiki-wide consensus in very different situations seems quite futile. Each article has to be written as per the sources and not as per other seemingly similar articles. I think the fact that they both played in the same season is a red herring because Campus Stellae existed before they bought the rights to SD Compostela teams and their places in the different competitions. It seems impossible for the same team to have potentially played against themself under 2 different names. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sociedad_Deportiva_Compostela_(1962-2006)&oldid=863750560"