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. ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 22:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mem Martins Sport Clube[edit]

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

Completing AfD on behalf of User:Always Learning reason to follow ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - With reference to the Club Notability Test user essay WP:NTEST we get this result:

Q1. Has the club played in a national cup (listed in the Blue Column)? YES

Q6. Does the completed article generally meet the notability standards set down in WP:GNG? NO

Q7. Has sufficient time been allowed for the preparation of the article? Suggest appropriate time is allowed for the authors to bring this article up to scratch having regard to the following sources:

There must be other sources that I have missed and in my view there is no reason why an article should not be prepared that meets WP:GNG standards. League Octopus (League Octopus 17:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - playing in the national cup is a decent claim to notability, and probably enough to keep at this AfD while the article is brought up to meet GNG. Giant Snowman 18:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most teams play in a national cup. No other claim to notability. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Club has only played in regional championships (DIVISION FIVE or lower), agree with Walter 200% --AL (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The reason for this AfD appears to be the club has played no higher than the fifth tier of the Portuguese league system. In this context we must remind ourselves that in England we have clubs playing in the eleventh tier that are notable because they have played in a national cup. At the moment the underlying principle that we follow is set down in the essay WP:FOOTYN which states All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria. In this context Mem Martins Sport Clube is clearly notable as they played 2 matches in the Portuguese national cup (Taça de Portugal) in 1990–91. More importantly there is evidence above that the article can be prepared to a standard that meets WP:GNG. League Octopus (League Octopus 09:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Userfy to League Octopus' userspace if he's willing to bring this otherwise non-notable club to GNG status. Two appearances in the national cup don't confer notability, as local consensus doesn't override wider consensus. – Kosm1 fent 16:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references in the article and listed above can't be said to provide evidence of significant coverage. Eldumpo (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm finding zero English language references for "Mem Martins Sport Clube." The article cites "Sporting and Mem Martins Sport Clube reached a deal" (PDF). CMVM (in Portuguese). 4 July 2010., but that has no mention of Mem Martins Sport Clube. The references cited by League Octopus above are a mixture of non-independent sources and non-Wikipedia reliable sources, neither of which contributes towards meeting WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: - With reference to the above comments the fact that there are no English language references is absolutely of no relevance at all? There are 2 excellent Portuguese language sources - ZeroZero and ForaDeJogo. There is a good newspaper source with a wealth of material in the Journal de Sintra. I know that I can produce an article that meets WP:GNG if we keep to our normal standards of 4 or 5 sources (and I would expect to provide around 10 sources for this article). However, in this case I am not going to produce a revamped article as I think we should concentrate on the core issue of whether appearances in the national cup confers notability. For the last 5 years this has been a core parameter in our decision-making. League Octopus (League Octopus 09:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I think we should move away from "playing in a national cup confers notability", (works perfectly for England, but not everywhere) and instead use your table (TEST) which shows at what level a club should have played to be "presumed notable". Mentoz86 (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have certainly prepared WP:NTEST with this in mind and I have drafted an amended version of the TEST itself which gives priority to whether a club has played at a "notable level" - it is very straight forward to tweak the TEST. For me a key consideration is not to rush into making changes unless we are sure that Editors are generally supportive. I am also concerned to treat in a fair manner those who in good faith have prepared articles in accordance with the essay WP:FOOTYN over the last 5 years. League Octopus (League Octopus 20:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

ZeroZero is a poor source of prose. It's just a bunch of stats. You can't write a descriptive article merely from stats. As for ForaDeJogo, that's essntially the same stats information, but posted at a different fan site. Even if the topic is important/significant under WP:NOT due to the clube's appearances in the national cup, the topic still needs to have received enough coverage in reilable sources for a stand alone article under WP:GNG. If there is not enough coverage in reilable sources for a stand alone article, then the article will not convey enough encyclopedic information. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no sources either in the article or, as far as I can tell having gone through a fair number of them, listed above, to indicate non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources as required by WP:GNG. The local weekly paper refs are mostly fixtures and results, and the others are sites connected to the club, stats sites or blogs, which can be used to supply detail but not to establish notability. As to WP:CONLIMITED, there isn't even a local consensus to suggest that a club entering any national cup regardless of entry criteria can be assumed notable, whatever it may say in the essay WP:FOOTYN or in any other essay, so we do need to demonstrate GNG, and as yet we haven't.
No prejudice against re-creation as and when notability can be demonstrated. If League Octopus or anyone else thinks they can improve the article so that it demonstrates general notability, that would be a benefit to the encyclopedia and much appreciated. But that would be better done in userspace, not mainspace. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2012 (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.