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. It has not been demonstrated that WP:NSPORT has been met, despite the predictions of WP:NCYC. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saymon Musie[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Continental champion, therefore meets NCYCLING. Seacactus 13 (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Seacactus 13, that is an invalid rationale. NSPORT requires subjects meet GNG and have at least one GNG source cited in the article. Have you found such a source? JoelleJay (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found several which I have expanded the article with and will continue to look for more. Seacactus 13 (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The subject meets an SNG and therefore the fact that they meet GNG is presumed Jack4576 (talk) 02:08, 14 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) 02:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You do not understand the notability guidelines. JoelleJay (talk) 15:24, 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]

Keep: Continental champion, therefore meets criterion #4 of NCYCLING "also includes races like the World University Cycling Championship"

arguably also meets criterion #5 on a purposive interpretation of that rule

As they meet an SNG, a presumption arises that they meet GNG Jack4576 (talk) 02:11, 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. Right now we only have one SIGCOV source, Sprint Especial, which is not sufficient. –dlthewave ☎ 02:51, 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) 03:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it passes NCYCLING though, giving rise to a presumption that SIGCOV exists. Jack4576 (talk) 03:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't presume that SIGCOV exists, it says it is likely that SIGCOV exists. The inability to find sufficient sources in this debate has disproven that assumption. BilledMammal (talk) 04:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am still entitled to presume that sources likely exist, and maintain my keep vote, on the basis that NCYCLING has been met. Jack4576 (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The first sentence of the NSPORT SNG says the sport-specific criteria are used to estimate whether an athlete is likely to meet the GNG. The second sentence of the SNG says athlete articles should cite the evidence that the subject meets the GNG. The first section repeats that athletes need to meet GNG. SPORTSBASIC repeats that athletes need to meet GNG. No one has demonstrated the subject here meets even SPORTSBASIC let alone GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article in Spanish that's been added just now amounts to SIGCOV Jack4576 (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This one:[1][2]? WP:BLOG. Just because something is online doesn't mean it's useful on WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The blog that consists almost entirely of quotes is neither RS nor SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 23:20, 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.