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. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient StarMississippi 13:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is required to meet GNG and the article must cite at least one GNG source. It is also not clear that he is a UCI category continental champion. JoelleJay (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is not required as the subject means an SNG. Reading 'UCI category' strictly is inappropriate here, as the subject is African and the African Continental Championships is equivalently as prominent as UCI events Jack4576 (talk) 01:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Plus it meets criterion #4 Jack4576 (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:GNG. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 05:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:ATHLETE: "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (for example, the general notability guideline"
As an SNG is met, meeting WP:GNG is not required Jack4576 (talk) 02:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As part of WP:NSPORTS, notability is not presumed under NCYCLING; it only tells us that significant coverage is likely to exist. Multiple sources must actually be found in order to establish notability. We don't even have the bare-minimum single source required by WP:SPORTBASIC. –dlthewave☎ 02:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: because NCYCLING has been met, the correct approach is to keep on the presumption that significant coverage likely exists, even if those sources haven't yet actually been located. Jack4576 (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:SPORTSCRIT #5 and WP:GNG. If sources are found, ping me. BilledMammal (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is irrelevant if it fails SPORTCRIT. BilledMammal (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am still entitled to presume that sources likely exist, and maintain my keep vote, on the basis that SPORTSCRIT has been met Jack4576 (talk) 04:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What source are you referring to when you say that SPORTSCRIT has been met? BilledMammal (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you provide the correct link? That one only includes passing coverage of Afewerki, in a list of players (The defending champions led by Team Dimension Data new signing Mekseb Debesay inspired the trio of Tesfom Okubamariam, Amanuel Ghebreigzabhier and Elyas Afewerki as they covered the 59km distance in Benslimane in 1:15:07.53, 58.18 seconds ahead of second-placed Algeria.) BilledMammal (talk) 07:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a reliable source to demonstrate that SPORTSCRIT has been met. Per the link:
"Eritrea won the men’s elite team time trial gold" , and in context Elyas was a part of that team.
Because I can reliably establish that it is the case that SPORTSCRIT has been met, I am entitled to presume that sources are likely to exist that would satisfy GNG, even if I haven't actually seen those sources Jack4576 (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To demonstrate that WP:SPORTCRIT #5 has been met you need at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. If you don't have that one source then we cannot keep the article. BilledMammal (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point changing vote. Jack4576 (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Although (1) its plausible this entry is of value to Eritrean, African, or Cyclist Wikipedians, (2) the claims contained in the article are supported by reliable sources, and (3) retaining this entry would assist in addressing WP's systematic deficiencies in coverage...
... the lack of coverage, both in-depth, and assessed collectively means that this entry doesn't meet SIGCOV requirements of GNG or an SNG. I have made WP:BEFORE searches yet none were found
Sadly, this is an instance where applying guidelines requires destruction of a knowledge source, irrespective of other considerations; including collateral damage to this website's wider mission and purpose Jack4576 (talk) 08:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If SIGCOV cannot be found on the subject, an article should not exist. No one has demonstrated GNG here. JoelleJay (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It should, but it can't under the guidelines Jack4576 (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2023 (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.