Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sporting Clube de Portugal Youth Sector

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. causa sui (talk) 06:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sporting Clube de Portugal Youth Sector

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

No evidence found that this youth club is notable in its own right (although it is mentioned in the parent club's article in passing) - if necessary, some of the content here could be merged with that article. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: It's a youth academy of a professional football club. It's one of te better ones too. It's only a weak keep because of a lack of sources. Kingjeff (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - youth teams of senior clubs can be considered notable, per Category:Reserve team football. Article needs improving, massively. Giant Snowman 10:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The key phrase is can be - I agree, but they need to meet the notability criteria in their own right, whereas I don't think this one does -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 12:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - topic area (i.e. reserve teams) can be notable, but no evidence this one will. If someone with the Portuguese language skills can find references to improve the article, please do - I'm more than happy to change my mind. Giant Snowman 12:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Needs references. Are some available? --MicroX (talk) 05:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 12:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Many clubs have youth team pages and many are poorly referenced. No reason why this one should be deleted. Adam4267 (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the reason why this one should be deleted is that no reliable independent sources with significant coverage is provided, and I couldn't find anything which could be used as such a source. It should be deleted because it does not (without such sourcing) meet the notability criteria, and so should not have a stand-alone article. Of course, it can be mentioned in the parent club article, but it does not currently warrant its own article PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the parent club article, if any content is worth merging, otherwise Delete. Big clubs' junior teams can be notable, the same as anything else, if there's enough independent non-trivial media coverage. But to justify keeping the article, it needs to demonstrate notability by reference to that coverage. This one doesn't. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is an onus to demonstrate that a particular youth team warrants a full-blown article, according to the general notability guideline. Certainly, there's a chance that sufficient sourcing exists, but I believe that even for a relatively big club, the chances of such sourcing existing are somewhat less than 50-50. The fact that other articles are in a similar position should have no bearing here. —W F C— 01:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Zero reliable secondary sources which establish notability. Given that the league they play in isn't even notable enough for an article, there would have to be an extraordinary reason to assume notability of the club, and "they wear a famous badge" is not one. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the parent club article. Warburton1368 (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2011 (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.