Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grupo Desportivo Águias de Camarate


 * 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 no consensus. Everybody agrees there's plenty of sources. Everybody agrees the sources are reliable. What people don't agree on is whether the sources are 1) independent of the subject and 2) not routine coverage. There's also disagreement about whether we should be looking to WP:NCORP or WP:GNG for guidance, but I don't see that as the fundamental disagreement here. The fundamental disagreement is about the quality of the sources, and that would be a problem no matter which guideline we tried to measure them by. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Grupo Desportivo Águias de Camarate

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable, virtually all sources are affiliated with the subject. Rosguill talk 04:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. But it is a sport club so of course speed keep... is what some people will say, I am sure. Well, I symphatize with deletion of sport cruft articles, we are way too friendly to sport spam (kick a ball, you are notable), but I'd appreciate a more detailed review of sources. While maybe half of the sources are primary, including at least one Facebook refs, others don't appear to be that affiliated with the subject. They may well not be reliable, but if you make claims they are all bad, well, prove it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The team in question is a non-professional 5th-level team in Lisbon. As for the sources, the only one that is significant coverage and isn't affiliated with the subject is No. 9, which is a Portuguese sports publication documenting one match that Aguais de Camarate played in. Googling that publication's name (Record Portugal) together with Aguais de Camarate returns two other articles, both of which give fairly trivial coverage of the subject. Rosguill talk 04:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Águias de Camarate played in the national third division in 1999-00 and while not every Segunda Divisiao team has an article, they do appear to have been consistently significantly covered at least in that season: and in seasons afterwards:  (seems to be a lot of historical coverage in record.pt) and have a new synthetic pitch  and even apparently hosted Madonna (not really significant coverage, but still!)  . Also played in the Portuguese cup for several seasons, starting in the second round. The article needs significant cleanup and I wouldn't be adverse to a draftify. SportingFlyer  talk  06:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per SportingFlyer - has played in the national cup, standard notability for football clubs. GiantSnowman 11:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep [spam, possibly copyvio removed--SN54129] --15:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)Daniel AR Pires (talk)
 * Delete Since WP:NFOOTBALL doesn't apply to teams (it's to individual players that playing at the national level equates to notability), WP:GNG applies, which relies upon in-depth and persistent coverage in reliable sources which is simply not available. This is not really a surprise: it is a local club with a stadium capacity of 1500. Yes, it makes claims as to various achievements, but they are not backed up with sources, and this is very much a case that "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources". —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 15:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have removed much of your post as it was merely an advert, which is what Wikipedia is not. In the meantime, you are welcome to expand on your !vote, but please keep it based on the policies and guidelines of the English Wiipedia. Many thanks. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 15:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing "exceptional" about this - it's simply a translation of the Portuguese page for a club which played in the national cup and third division 18 years ago, which generated consistent press coverage in those seasons in spite of its overall low stature. SportingFlyer  talk  19:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Since the argument to delete the article was lack of sources, I went search and now it has over 40+ sources that back up all the achievements. --Daniel AR Pires (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC) (Duplicate !vote struck - Vanamonde (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC))
 * The objection was notability of sources, not sheer number of sources. Looking at the revisions, all of the sources that were added appear to be score listings from zerozero.pt (like this ), which does not constitute significant, in-depth coverage as mandated by WP:GNG. These sources are fine for substantiating the various claims they're attached to regarding Camarate's performance in local tournaments, but they do not demonstrate notability of the subject as a whole. Rosguill talk 19:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "Yes, it makes claims as to various achievements, but they are not backed up with sources..." by —SerialNumber54129, This sources back up all the achievements of the club, proving that all that is written is true. And zerozero is an official reliable site that contains all the results, achievements, history, etc., from every club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel AR Pires (talk • contribs) 20:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You have not demonstrated that these achievements are notable: I don't see any reason that winning a non-professional district-level tournament should be considered notable unless it has significant coverage in reliable sources. While ZeroZero may be reliable in reporting scores, its coverage is not significant or in-depth. I would expect to see multiple sources reporting long-form articles (in Portuguese is fine) in order to consider the coverage significant and in-depth. Additionally the content currently included is downright misleading: the awards list currently lists "National Champion" and "Win [sic] the Europa League Champions League". However, this does not refer to the well-known Europa League or Champions League, but some non-professional tournament held in Loures, whose only citation is the website of the group hosting the tournament. Rosguill talk 20:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It is the official Europa League of Initiates echelon, they win it against a foreign team from europe, and there are other sources that can confirm all the achievements but ZeroZero is the main Sports official source, the other ones are trust worthy too, but its unnecessary to put more than 2/3 sources stating the same facts.--Daniel AR Pires (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe that at this point there is no further need to prove that these scores are accurate. I can't seem to find anything by googling "Europa League of Initiates". Are you sure you translated this name correctly? Additionally, attempting to google "Champions in Loures", which appears to be the name of the tournament in question, only returns sites affiliated with the organization hosting the tournament, which doesn't appear to be affiliated with FIFA or any other readily recognizable European soccer organization. At any rate, more important than identifying this tournament, is providing evidence of significant coverage of the team: that means full-length articles about the subject from reliable third-party sources, not just score summaries. Rosguill talk 00:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I already changed the name from Europa League Champions League in Loures to "Europa League/Champions League in Loures" which means there can not be a confusion because based on grammar the use of (" ") is referring to a name in particular, so since the name of the tournament was "Europa League/Champions League in Loures", and not "Champions League", or "Europa League" only, so now the name is politically correct. Regarding the lack of third-party sources i'm trying every day to add more and more sources, but it takes time.--Daniel AR Pires (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify the significance of the "Champions in Loures" tournament? Based on the content at the tournament appears to be a children's tournament, advertising competitions for ages 8-and-under to 15-and-under, as well as "medals for all participants" (medalhas para todos os participantes). I don't see any indication that this tournament is associated with a professional soccer league, other than your insistence that it is "the official Europa League of Initiates echelon", which once again is not something I can find online by that name. Rosguill talk 18:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's what they call to the tournament, the organization tournament is "Champions in Loures" and then there is a "Europa League", the organization calls it "Europa League Champions in Loures" that is the real name of the tournament, if it is linked to the official UEFA, FIFA, etc. I can not assure you, but see for yourself -> --Daniel AR Pires (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * When first asked to justify this tournament a few replies above, you said It is the official Europa League of Initiates echelon, they win it against a foreign team from europe. Perhaps we misinterpreted each other, but at the time I took this comment to imply that this tournament was significant and affiliated with an official Europa League body. This last reply seems to confirm that this tournament is not in fact a professional tournament and is not a priori notable. If you agree with this assessment, I have no further comment. Rosguill talk 18:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment For additional consideration, there is reason to believe from the edit summaries for the article that Daniel AR Pires has a conflict of interest, as they claim in their most recent edit summary that text they provided was "reviewed by the President of the club". This is in addition to a lot of content that they have previously written in the article that is in the first-person plural. Rosguill talk 00:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood what I meant in the edit, that the text they provided was "reviewed by the President of the club", it means that what "Serial Number 54129" was trying to delete from the history of the club, was reviewed by the president on the source that I attached to the text. Which means it is all correct. And the content that is in the first-person is actually a (Text by the author of Mestre Armandino Santos, September 2015) and is in . --Daniel AR Pires (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please review the History in the Taça de Portugal section, which currently includes statements like "In our second appearance on the so-called "Proof Queen" of Portuguese football we were headed to Vila Franca de Xira to face Vilafranquense, we won the match 1-0 and went on to the 1/64 Round of 32 where we were lucky SC Braga in our field. Game played until today remembered by many, by the delivery of our players (who beat the same against an already renamed Braga) and by the bad weather that was felt. We lost the match 2-1 (Manel's goal)."
 * without any quotation marks or other notation that would identify it as a quote. The source, moreover, was, which is a list of scores. Nothing in that source mentions bad weather or what the players remembered. Moreover, it's not clear how you know that the club president reviewed this.. Rosguill talk 18:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * When I said that it "was reviewed by the president on the source that I attached to the text." I'm referring to this attached source, this is the official website of the club, so if something is there obviously it needs to pass through the president's hands. That is why I stated that. And in the end of the "HISTÓRIA DO CLUBE" you can find: "Presentemente, o Grupo Desportivo Águias de Camarate conta com uma nova direção, desde 01 de Fevereiro de 2014." which means: "At present, Grupo Desportivo Águias de Camarate has a new management since February 1, 2014.", so that was clearly reviewed or possibly written by the president. --Daniel AR Pires (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep User:SportingFlyer has pointed out a number of reasons for keeping the article which I concur too, if he was able to pull those citations out of the hat I really don't think the nominator has done his homework in sending this to AfD. And SerialNumber54129 attack on the article doesn't help when Daniel AR Pires is only trying to improve the article. You two should really be using the talk page to sort out the issues instead of warring. Some of the citations are a bit suspect and certain points of the article need additional citation but overall I am happy to say this passes WP:GNG, WP:NSPORT, WP:FOOTYN. Govvy (talk) 10:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you would explain how WP:FOOTY (a subsection of WP:NSPORTS) clearly states that "This guideline does not cover sports teams"? And please try and assume good faith: I make no apology for removing cruft and WO:OR, which improves the encyclopaedia. I assure you: even if the article is kept, it will not be in its current form, and you would do well to advise its creator of that, instead of (as you say, with three reverts) edit-warring, moving in it out of draft space, and generally showing complete ownership over it. All those factors, as you know, are detrimental to the encyclopaedia and a collegiate working environment. Thank you. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 10:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I undo what you did because you were only deleting huge parts of an article that clearly you did no research, instead of deleting you should went looking for information. Like I did, I undo your attacks and went source for more sources to improve the article, if there is anyone here violating any sort of rule, it's you because you blindly attacked an article instead of improving it. And your statement of me "generally showing complete ownership over it." it's completely false because I support and encourage others to participate on Wikipedia, I do not delete any other user edit, but what you did was not an improvement of the article but something that can be called vandalism.--Daniel AR Pires (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , from viewing the diff page for those edits, the vast majority of the content you reinstated after Serial Number removed it was literally a copy-paste from the google translation of Aguais de Camarate's website . Not only is this content not from a reliable source (primary sources published by the subject are not reliable sources) and blatantly promotional, it hadn't been even slightly copy-edited and is almost incomprehensible in English. It is also a violation of WP:COPYPASTE, and possibly a WP:COPYVIO violation (I can't seem to find guidelines for assessing copyright violations for translated text. However, outside of Wikipedia, translating a text cannot be done without permission form the holder of the copyright). If you were intending to improve upon the content after pasting it into the article, I would suggest that you do so as a draft and not as a published article viewable to the public. There is no reason to accuse Serial Number of vandalism. Rosguill talk 20:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What he did shouldn't be done, but now those parts deleted by Serial Number are properly backed up by reliable third-party sources, I completely agree that the article needs to receive a significant copy-editing for grammar and accuracy. It should be reviewed but if it could be done quick there's nothing that should stop it of been kept as an article in my personal opinion.


 * With all due respect, I don't believe that the examples cited by SportingFlyer constitute significant coverage per WP:GNG. GNG very clearly states that routine and sports coverage is not significant, and as Serial Number54129 has said above, WP:NSPORT does not apply to teams (see WP:NTEAM) and says that WP:GNG is the standard to which teams are held. That leaves only municipiosefreguesias.pt as a candidate for being an RS, which is a source that I can't seem to find any third-party mention of on Google to verify reliability. Upon investigating the site, while it does have some news coverage, it also seems to double as an events announcement page and also includes a directory of businesses in Portugal, which IMO are marks against its reliability in the absence of any positive arguments. Rosguill talk 18:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's a logical fallacy to discount sports scores as WP:ROUTINE for determining the notability of teams as opposed to players - these were articles about the club and not agate. This team received consistent significant coverage the year they were in the third division. I wouldn't mind a TNT delete as this was a translate/copy/paste from the Portuguese version, but I see no reason to believe they're not notable, or to discount lots of coverage. SportingFlyer  talk  19:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that this discussion illustrates a failing of the existing notability guidelines for teams, which should perhaps be raised at the Village Pump. I do see that there is an essay at WP:FOOTYN that supports your interpretation of notability, and based on that would amend my delete recommendation to a delete/draftify until the article receives significant copy-editing for grammar and accuracy, and removes self-promotional content. There are also some COI allegations that remain unaddressed. Rosguill talk 19:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I would support a draftify. SportingFlyer  talk  22:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. The sources currently in the article are not enough to demonstrate that the topic meets the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for organisations and companies, both of which require not just routine coverage (which I believe would be an accurate description of the sources linked above by SportingFlyer) but significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. I haven't been able to find any other sources that would indicate notability. It's possible that there are Portuguese-language or offline sources that I've been unable to find (the latter especially given that they apparently saw their most successful season in 1999/2000), but I would expect that, if that were the case, Google News would turn up a little more than it does. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sports clubs do not fall under WP:NCORP. I don't remember exactly which AfD I remember the argument being made, but they were specifically removed from NCORP maybe a year ago? Also see my argument above about how "routine" coverage of match recaps actually demonstrates notability for sports teams (as opposed to players), because routine coverage for clubs shows the club was notable enough to be consistently covered in the media (at least the year they were in the third division.) Contrast this to club scores in agate, or notability for a player. SportingFlyer  talk  22:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Despite several sources been about the results that is very important to prove they're both true and reliable which helps the article as a whole. But not only that, you can see now after some editing it was added some considered amount of articles about the subject from reliable third-party sources like:     and others... However I completely agree that the article needs to receive a significant copy-editing for grammar and accuracy. It should be reviewed, but nevertheless it's a well rounded relevant and backup article, so give it a time to get it's grammar and accuracy and there is nothing more to criticize. --Daniel AR Pires (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me of that. I'd assumed, I now realise probably incorrectly, that there was a pertinent distinction between sports teams narrowly construed and the sort of organisation this article is about, which comprises multiple teams across multiple sports. Perhaps it's a grey area; either way, I've struck that part of my vote, though I believe the rest still applies. As far as WP:ROUTINE is concerned, the guideline simply doesn't provide enough detail to conclusively say whether or not it applies to the sources in question, so your interpretation is no less valid than mine. We can't consider these things entirely in isolation though, and my sense that ROUTINE applies is informed by the broader context I outline in my final sentence above. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Sources provided are enough to pass GNG, thanks to the excellent research above. Smartyllama (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yes, I know this goes against the grain, but if we see sources of this sort as counting towards GNG, our bar is too low. I have spot-checked the sources, and I do not see them rising above the level of routine local sports coverage. Even high-school sports teams frequently receive coverage of this sort. Vanamonde (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2018 (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.