Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grupo Desportivo de Basquete de Leça


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  06:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Grupo Desportivo de Basquete de Leça

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No refs on the page for many years, only mentions seen as refs, nothing found on pt.wiki JMWt (talk) 10:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  11:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  12:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Portugal. JMWt (talk) 10:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Also goes by the shorter name GDB LECA. Seems to be currently playing in the third tier according to their Eurobasket.com profile but did play in the second tier for a few seasons. The profile only has info back to 2012 but the club was founded in 1972. A quick Google search turns up some match reports but I didn't dig around for long. Not familiar enough about Portugues media to know where to look. Alvaldi (talk) 10:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  11:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's currently zero sources in the article, and a Google news search finds two sources, one of which is arguably passing. I dont see how that meets WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete functionally per . Searching for sources myself has not been fruitful, but I don't speak or read the language in question, so it's possible sourcing exists but we just can't see it. That doesn't convince me an unsourced article marked as such since 2009 warrants remaining in mainspace, however. — Sirdog (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2024 (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.