Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Three (Portugal)


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Big Three (Portugal)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No reliable sources demonstrate the notability of the topic. Biruitorul Talk 19:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Lots of chaff from content forks, but the bit actually about the name is mere trivia. Dahn (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I've trimmed the aforementioned chaff, and added some sources (including from some of Britain's biggest national papers + football magazines) to show notability. GiantSnowman 19:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I note that the claim about the sources being from "some of Britain's biggest national papers + football magazines" is questioned (one is, in fact, a blog post). I also note that the Independent article simply mentions that the notion exists, which I don't think was being questioned - not every metaphor, superstition or seasonal aspect of football culture needs to receive its own wikipedia entry. Particularly since, in this case, we're talking about the collective nicknames of three clubs who each have their own article, and whose history of dominating the Port. league is well covered by the necessary articles and subarticles. To prove that this not merely a content fork, one would have to come up with sources showing some special cultural relevancy, some history of the term, something that makes the topic stand up on its own legs. Dahn (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - seems like a notable topic. Google web and news searches for "Os Três Grandes" (rather than "Big Three") give some good results. &mdash;BETTIA&mdash; talk 09:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure plenty of news articles that cover the matches between the "big three" tend to mention the name as a collective attribute. To give you an analogy: In my own country, back in the day, there used to be reference to the "Bucharest clubs" that apparently no provincial team could hope to dethrone from the top of the league, for various speculated reasons. The notion has survived for long enough to be mentioned all over the sports pages, but the attribute "Bucharest teams" will still refer to, well, the teams of Bucharest, on which we have individual articles that cover all that remains to be covered. The situation here strikes me as similar, and I think the article should only exist if sourced by, say, essays showing the cultural or institutional significance of the term, not by blog posts and news items that simply are part of soccer folklore. Dahn (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's such a good analogy - Stauea and Rapid would naturally be referred to as the 'Bucharest clubs' as they are from Bucharest. From the sources I've seen, the Big Three / Tres Grandes is a common term used by both Portuguese and English language media to refer to these three clubs, in the same way that the two big Glasgow clubs are referred to as the Old Firm. The Portuguese version of this article also mentions that this term isn't restricted to football, but also other sports played by these clubs. Lastly, the requirement for an "essay" on the subject isn't part of any notability guidelines - in this case, we just need evidence this is a commonly used term. &mdash;BETTIA&mdash; talk 10:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My analogy referred to some of the clubs in Bucharest being referred to as "the Bucharest clubs" (for instance, Rocar was not, even when it played top division). The term was used as a metaphor for an informal category of clubs, just like this one: in the 1990s and even before, only "Bucharest clubs" (Steaua, Dinamo, Rapid) could be expected to win cups and titles. Per WP:Sports event: "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable. Articles on sports rivalries, such as Yankees-Red Sox rivalry, should satisfy the general notability guideline, and additionally must show why the rivalry is important with multiple non-trivial [emphasis mine], reliable sources." I think what is needed would be sources (and text based on those sources) that explain the history and relevance of the term, not just that the term is used a lot in match commentary. The ball is round, for instance, is another equally widespread footballing cliché, and you'll find it in all sorts of reliable sources that make footballing folklore, but I don't think we should be expecting the article to pop up. Presently, all the sources validate at the moment is an addition at Big Three disambig: "a collective term for the Portuguese clubs Benfica, F.C. Porto and Sporting Clube de Portugal". Dahn (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - more sources added. GiantSnowman 17:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks like it meets WP:GNG and this kind of topic certainly can be notable (i.e. Original Six). Qrsdogg (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.