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 merge to S.S.D. Potenza Calcio. (non-admin closure) ansh666 20:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History of Città di Potenza S.S.[edit]

History of Città di Potenza S.S. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No sources, been a problem since July 2013 (hidden tag)? Endercase (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting from article: Team was "liquidated" in 2014 and their highest honor was regional. Endercase (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - if it is not a hoax, a Serie D team will likely pass NORG, right? Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smmurphy: The proper standard is WP:NFOOT (of WP:NSPORT) rarther than WP:NORG, correct? Why do you think it is a hoax? --David Tornheim (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Teams suggests that NSPORT does not cover teams. I don't think it is a hoax, but rather I think the only reason to delete an article on a team that played in a national-level minor league might be that the article is a hoax. My thought is that non-local minor league teams usually get enough coverage in regional and national sources to meet NORG, even if the sources aren't immediately found. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for directing me to Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Teams. The first line of WP:NSPORT says "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia." Then Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Teams says "This guideline does not cover sports teams." Well, which is it? What a contradiction. I will propose WP:NSPORT be clarified. (Done here: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Contradiction.3F) --David Tornheim (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC) (revised 13:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

One reason to think it could be a hoax is because it has no references and was made by an account that has had a large number of their article's deleted. Also, I just don't see how a team that played at most 3 years under that name is really notable. Endercase (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability requires only that these necessary sources have been published—even if these sources are not actually listed in the article yet (though in most cases it probably would improve the article to add them)." --WP:ORGIN -- We don't have any sources, and we haven't for a while. -- Endercase (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect back to parent article, no need for separate article. GiantSnowman 08:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: What parent article? --David Tornheim (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a parent article, that I can see. Endercase (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim and Endercase: erm S.S.D. Potenza Calcio? GiantSnowman 07:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I just noticed that the initial version of this page linked to History of Potenza S.C., which has sources, but I don't know if those sources are good or not. We should probably check the Italian WIkipedia.

I went to the Italian Wikipedia, and I think I see what is going on. This club apparently had been refounded four times due to controversy, which explains why it was defunct. The controversy including betting scandals and fraud is likely notable, but I haven't seen the WP:RS. With 90 years, I imagine there must be something worth keeping. For ease of looking at it, I include the following:

We should probably try to reflect what is in the Italian article all in one article, assuming the various incantations of the team are notable enough to have an article and get rid of the "History of" portion. I do believe all three of these should be merged into just one article:

• S.S.D. Potenza Calcio
• History of Potenza S.C.
• History of Città di Potenza S.S.

I put merger proposals on all those pages and on the talk pages referred editors here.

--David Tornheim (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect along with History of Potenza S.C. to S.S.D. Potenza Calcio parent article, per my previous comment and per GiantSnowman. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim and GiantSnowman: Between all 3 articles there is only one functional source, the others are 404 errors. That one source just says that the team was found guilty of something (doesn't mention what). Wikipedia is the primary source for 99.99% of the material in the articles, in the english internet at the very least. Without better sources I'm still in favor of a delete. But I consent to a 3 article merger, so at the very least 2 pieces of information are verified: the team existed (doesn't mention what their ranking was), they were punished for something. Endercase (talk) 13:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Endercase: are you ignoring all the sources on the Italian-language article (linked above)? GiantSnowman 13:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Well yeah, because they were not part of the merger proposal. All in all a machine translated version of the italian article would be better that what we have here in english. So maybe we should just delete these three and put in redirects that point to the italian article? Though apparently even in the italian article their sources still don't meet wikipedia's standards (hence the tag). I've never heard of that being done though. Endercase (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's a silly suggestion, completely without precedent. What we should do is merge/redirect the articles to S.S.D. Potenza Calcio, and then improve that article using the vast number of sources available. GiantSnowman 13:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a silly suggestion that is completely without precedent. But, it could work. At the very least we should keep that Italian article tag on the page after we merge them. Their article is better than our is likely to be. Endercase (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with GiantSnowman that "What we should do is merge/redirect the articles to S.S.D. Potenza Calcio, and then improve that article using the vast number of sources available." [Are they vast?] Although I do think that the tag is helpful right now, once this article has taken out all material that is helpful from the Italian Wikipedia, I think ultimately, it would be removed. (The question is will anyone be motivated enough to do all that work?) I do agree with you that the link to the foreign Wikipedia is helpful at this point and would probably be useful to reader, but it seems that existing consensus is negative towards machine-translations per WP:NONENG, Wikipedia:Citing sources#Additional annotation, Wikipedia:Translation#Avoid_machine_translations and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_130#Links_to_Google_Translate. Linking to the WP:NONENG articles as WP:RS is very much okay, and also providing a link to the machine-translation is acceptable per these discussions and others I have had, but I have never seen anything about linking to foreign wikipedias as a final result of an article. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- The question is how far down the footy hierarchy we allow articles on teams, especially those now defunct. If I am right in thinking it crossed the barrier out of being NN for one season, the best solution is probably a merge, but I do not really know. We certainly do not need a separate article on its history. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - I think we all agree a spate article for the history of a team of this low status is most likely unneeded, a merge is probably the best action, but if non of the information can be backed up from a reliable source a delete would be appropriate as well. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect - if anyone wants to find the Italian versions, they can go to the Italian version from the remaining article, and then read further if they wish. Nfitz (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2017 (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.