This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Sports. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
Edit this page and add ((Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName)) to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding ((subst:delsort|Sports|~~~~)) to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Sports.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Only mention in independent sources I can find are local papers discussing the facility's 2022 sale. Seems to fail WP:NORG. funplussmart (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt again for lack of notability, dearth of reliable sources. Kill this ad. DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 19:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG due to lack of SIGCOV. Based on the lack of recent editing and the fact that the article has been tagged for notability since 2011, I strongly oppose salting. There is little “threat” of recreation for the sake of recreation. FrankAnchor 22:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to keep per the sources added by Cunard which establish notability. I maintain my opposition to salting if there is consensus to delete. FrankAnchor 15:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river.
The article notes: "With its eight named runs and a vertical drop of 441 feet, Rotarun has been responsible for nurturing young talents like Olympic champions Picabo Street and Cristin Cooper and Paralympic medalist Muffy Davis. This humble little mountain has been a testament to community involvement since it sprang into existence in the winter of 1940-41, when three locals—Jim Hurst, Bob Jackson and Bill Mallory—ventured out of Croy Canyon, climbed Rotarun and declared that it would make a nice little ski hill."
The article notes: "Kathleen Eder knows every dip and rise in the treeless white hill that constitutes Rotarun Ski Area. She spent many hours here watching her daughter Lauren and son Jason take the first turns that launched their ski racing careers. ... Snowmaking, installed this year, has transformed the face of the mountain into a white expanse with none of the wheat-colored bunchgrasses that dot the slopes in lean snow years. Instead, the hill resembled a little factory with a steady stream of pint-sized skiers catching a ride on the Poma lift that ferried them 475 feet up the hill. ... Rotarun sprang into existence as an official ski hill when Bill Mallory, Bob Jackson and Jim Hurst arranged for a tractor-and-pulley rope tow to pull skiers up the 5,895-foot hill. And Jimmy Savaria gave ski lessons for $1 per week."
The article notes: "This is another long-standing small ski hill, which got its name when the local Rotary Club opened the hill in 1947. ... For example, on a busy Friday night in January, 60 people were on the hill. Race days attract 150 racers. Annual winter events include the Snow Box Derby, where people decorate sleds made of paper, tape and cardboard then glide down a course on the sleds, and the ski and snowboard Arkoosh Cup Race. The old Sun Valley heli-ski building was donated and moved and will be remodeled for the Rotarun's ski lodge, snack bar and warming hut."
The article notes: "But a small mountain located south of Ketchum in Hailey provides something that Baldy doesn’t — night skiing. Located three miles east of downtown Hailey is Rotarun, known as “the little mountain with a big heart.” This fun little ski hill has been around for 60 years, serving the local community and providing a close-by, cheaper alternative to Sun Valley’s main ski hill. Rotarun has two lifts that run a little over 400 vertical feet to the top; one is a Poma lift and the other a handle tow lift."
The article notes: "Idaho's smallest ski resort - Rotarun in Hailey - more than tripled its annual skier visits from around 3,000 to nearly 12,000 after it installed snowmaking. ... Little Rotarun, which got its name after the local Rotary Club replaced an existing rope tow in 1957, has a platter lift that was installed in 2001 and 441 feet of vertical. It struggled to stay open over the years and serve its community until the Rotarun Ski Club asked the Sun Valley Ski Education Foundation to step in and help operate the mountain starting in 2017. Limburg, a commercial real estate broker who's on the SVSEF board, became president, and the two nonprofits partnered, tapping into SVSEF's much bigger resources and donor base."
The article notes: "During the winter of 1940-41, Jim Hurst, Bob Jackson and Bill Mallory decided that it was a nice day to go skiing, so they ventured out Croy Canyon, climbed Rotarun and declared that it would be a nice little ski hill. Those ski pioneers used a donated tractor from Wayne Clark and a pulley system to operate a rope tow in the early days. Jay Deering and Charles and Pilar Harris helped with the rope tow and Jimmy Savaria gave ski lessons for $1 per week. Ski racer Ann Janet Winn, who competed in the 1948 Winter Olympics, began teaching local children skiing on a small hill at the Hailey Elementary School and later took her students to Rotarun."
Delete: Aside from the cogent arguments cited above, with which I agree, this is absurdly trivial. Ravenswing 08:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article for just this seems a bit much. If someone wants to move the individual season information to the relevant yearly draft articles I won't stop them. Deadman137 (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No refs on the page for many years. There are a number of unref claims on the page which could be removed per WP:V but I'm also unclear whether this is a duplicate page with content from another or something else altogether. There are WP pages in other languages but they don't have many refs and do not clear up the confusion. It feels like it could perhaps be merged with Basque pelota but I'm confused so this might not be appropriate for reasons I do not fully understand JMWt (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If this page is deleted, something will also have to be done with the Trinquete disambiguation page, which has only this entry and Valencian trinquet. Valencian trinquet also does not cite any sources, so could potentially fail notability as well. Bandit Heeler (talk) 08:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No refs on the page for many years. Colleagues at Wikiproject Japan tell me that the page on ja.wiki only has primary sources. There may be sources in Japanese but I'm not seeing anything much to add. JMWt (talk) 05:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This could possibly be WP:REDIRECTed to 1992 AFC Asian Cup#Stadiums or Onomichi#Parks and gardens per WP:CHEAP as an alternative to deletion, but otherwise I'm not seeing how this meets WP:NBUILDING. A Google search of the 広島県立びんご運動公園陸上競技場 really doesn't come up with anything that looks like WP:SIGCOV, and pretty much all of the content in the corresponding Japanese Wikipedia article is unsourced or WP:NOTEVERYTHING kind of content. The only content in the Japanese Wikipedia article that might be worth adding is the stuff about the stadium's naming rights being purchased in 2022. I also found something online about stadium undergoing a renewal in 2022, but that's about it. In addition to the Japanese Wikipedia article, there are six other non-English Wikipedia articles the stadium, but these all are stubs and appear to just be translations of the Japanese Wikipedia article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: why are there no interlanguage links on this page, I wonder? I found the WP:ja article here (sorry, someone please convert to proper 'ja' link); where are the other language articles? I have no knowledge of sport [stop there, really] stadia and the like, but searching in Japanese only finds me primary sources. The name Bingo is geographical: this is the name of the old kuni or province of this area. The naming rights bit is about something called Dasshu Kozakana-kun, (lit. "Dash", as in running, "little fish"), which sounds like a "cute" character name, but I cannot find anyreference to this name not associated with the stadium. So there really is very very little here. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, based on my expansion (added "History" section) and the above sources. The stadium has been a venue for several large international competitions in the 90s, so I think there are avenues for expansion by looking into newspapers from that time period. In addition there are several Japanese-language sources on the web to examine. --Habst (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Habst's expansion, AGFing the Japanese sources that coverage is sufficient. GiantSnowman 18:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I appreciate the new sourcing and section, but the coverage and seeming notability here is quite weak, especially for a stadium that doesn't appear to get regular use and whose last official/notable use was 32 years ago. Anwegmann (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a harmless list of achievements rather than an indiscriminate collection of stats. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think parts of this article do qualify as an "indiscriminate collection of information". Take the "NBA highs since 1983-84" section. Why is that season chosen as the cutoff? Who is the audience for statistics with that level of granularity? Who is going to take the time to confirm that all of that content is still up to date? The more important achievements should already be listed in the Dwight Howard article. Zagalejo (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 06:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no good reason for this entire category of articles to exist. A person's notable accomplishments should be found in the article about that person. A person's non-notable accomplishments should be found nowhere. There will always be disputes whether a certain accomplishment is notable or not, and such disputes are valid and necessary. This type of article is essentially claiming that there's a whole new category "Sort-Of-Notable-Ish Accomplishments". There is no such category. If it turns out that articles about brilliant outliers with huge lists of notable accomplishments become too long to read, deal with those individually. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unsourced article about a smalltown sports facility. As always, sports venues are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about them, but this cites no sources at all and has been tagged as such since 2012. Bearcat (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Berian (below). Should have done that myself. Meters (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Merge and redirect. I have smerged images and a small amount of text into the main article Kincardine, Ontario. Bearian (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does pass GNG, as you'd expect from a 10.000 seat stadium, but the article needs to be improved. See Portuguese page and [2][3][4]SportingFlyerT·C 20:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet GNG/NCORP. The only source that is about WRA and in-depth is the BBC. Some of the sources make no mention of WRA and the others are brief mentions or based on what the organization/those affiliated say. S0091 (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the previously cited lack of evidence demonstrating notability. Furthermore, the organisation appears to be using Wikipedia for advocacy as evidenced by the fact that the article was commissioned by them (see article talk page), clarifying edits have been reversed by a user with a registered COI based only on the claim that the organisation is “legitimate and registered”, and a link to the article is displayed prominently on their website’s home page. The line “Wikipedia is not… to be an adjunct web presence for an organization” on Wikipedia:Advocacy appears to be particularly relevant here. Jaa.eem (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article, and Disicipline the editors who are COI-editing or removing tags inappropriately. The relevant policy here is not only WP:NCORP but also WP:NSPORT as a sports league/organization. Looking at this as neutrally as possible, the bar for coverage is met:
The fact that the organization seems to be using Wikipedia for promotion is unfortunate, but also must not be a reason for its deletion; as with all articles we need to look at the sources neutrally. --Habst (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Habst the Independent and Sky News (along with others published around April 8th) are based almost entirely what those affiliated with organization say so primary and is also churnalism. S0091 (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091, The Independent and Sky News aren't churnalism outlets, they're both marked as "generally reliable" by CiteHighlighter and WP:RSP. They're also not the only sources, as you pointed out, there are many others from around that time period.
With great respect, I think this is a misapplication of WP:Primary – of course, news outlets will respond to and report quotes and statements from organization officials with analysis. That is journalism and secondary sourcing, not primary sourcing. A primary source would be, for example, citing the World Runners Association Charter document (if one exists) or similar.
Thank you, --Habst (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great respect back atcha @Habst :) but reliability has nothing do with churnalism. Other than the BBC article, all they say about WRA other than they dispute Cook's claim is that the WRA is "a group made up of seven athletes who have successfully circumnavigated the world on foot" or similar. That's not in-depth coverage. S0091 (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091, thanks, I hear your concern so I tried to look for mentions before the April 8th event. I found many, see this web search:
I don't think that these are all churnalism, and as that's a subjective term it's difficult to prove one way or the other. Furthermore, I don't think that an article needs to specifically say "WRA is..." by name for portions of the article to contribute to notability; members or components of the group may be discussed as well. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As with the Independent and Sky News articles the WRA in these examples is only really being mentioned in passing due to an association with a notable event which are the actual focus of the articles.
An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it
Even the BBC article is in fact largely covering the pursuits of Olsen and the World Running Club - an entity which is not actually equivalent to WRA and was created almost a year before the WRA was founded. The WRA is only discussed over two sentences in the BBC article. That article is evidence for the notability of the WRC, not the WRA:
A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries
Perhaps as a compromise the WRA (or maybe more justifiably the World Running Club) could be merged with Olsen’s Wikipedia page until further evidence can be found for notability? Jaa.eem (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaa.eem, a common theme in this discussion is that WRA is mentioned in a wide variety of sources, but there are concerns about depth. Could we not apply the combining principle, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability? This is stated in WP:BASIC for people but surely the principle applies just as well in this situation. For an organization that is so widely covered in so many WP:RSP reliable sources, the more I research this topic the more I think we would be making a mistake to delete that may be biased by the behavior of COI editors. Thank you, --Habst (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NORG explicitly states that an organisation must have multiple sources providing significant coverage. In fact, it also explicitly states that “A collection of multiple trivial sources does not become significant.”
WP:BASIC plainly cannot be applied as suggested. Jaa.eem (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eh...as the nom, I am not stuck on using the NCORP sourcing criteria given the crossover of org/sports/club but certainly WP:BASIC does not apply. I think GNG makes enough sense which requires WP:SIGCOV by multiple sources. Either way, I think the three of us need to step back so others can opine. S0091 (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think it should be controversial to utilise WP:NORG.
Scanning a bit deeper into the guidelines there is also a section specifics for NGOs which describes the WRA by their own admission: Wikipedia:NGO
This also states that multiple significant sources are required. Jaa.eem (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which specific aspect of Wikipedia:Notability (sports) is relevant here? It’s very possible that I’ve missed it but those guidelines do not appear to provide any specific guidance for organisations claiming to be a governing body. The “basic criteria” appears to be in relation to sports people rather than organisations.
Furthermore, the Independent and Sky News articles you have linked provide only trivial coverage of the WRA itself - they are instead focussed on Russ Cook and comments made by individuals who are members of the WRA regarding Russ Cook. Jaa.eem (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaa.eem, given that the lede of NSPORT specifically mentions sports organizations, I think it is worth considering the policy as a whole. Because there isn't any specific section for a governing body, I would try to apply the "spirit" of WP:SPORTBASIC, even though it is about people, in lieu of more specific criteria. SPORTBASIC prong 5 says that if there is at least one non-database source, which we can agree that the BBC article is, then "there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article". I'm open to other ideas, but in my review of the material I am having a hard time being comfortable with a delete decision here in light of the breadth of coverage. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HabstWP:SPORTBASIC is specific to people. The section of NSPORT that covers organizations relevant to clubs, WP:NTEAM, states: This guideline does not provide any general criteria for the presumed notability of sports teams and clubs. Some sports have specific criteria. Otherwise, teams and clubs are expected to demonstrate notability by the general notability guideline. Since notability is not inherited, the notability of an athlete does not imply the notability of a team or club, or vice versa. The BBC article describes WRA as a club, though they frame it as a travel club, so I think GNG is the relevant guideline. S0091 (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My read of WP:SPORTBASIC is that it is intended to reduce the burden of evidence of notability for individual people which I think is justifiable - I would suggest that a sportsperson on the borderline of genuine notability (putting aside Wikipedia’s guidelines for a moment) is less likely to have comprehensive secondary sourcing available and thus reducing the burden of evidence makes sense. Conversely I would suggest that a genuinely notable “international governing body” would realistically have substantial coverage and thus reducing the burden of evidence purely by virtue of being related to sport cannot be justified.
Furthermore, as @S0091 says WP:NSPORT does provide guidance for clubs which I think is a much closer analogue to this example than an individual sports person. Jaa.eem (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaa.eem and @S0091, thanks for your thoughtful responses. The reason why I went to WP:NSPORT is because it's the most specific guideline I could find that includes the subject. If I were to describe WRA, I would say it's a "sports organization" and that phrase appears exactly in the lede of NSPORT but not any other guideline.
The WP:NTEAM section, on the other hand, doesn't seem to apply because I would struggle to call the WRA a team (it doesn't compete against other "teams", for example) nor is it a "club" in the European sense of the word intended there, a sports club.
I agree that "international governing body" is also a good descriptor, and I think that we should have high standards for notability when there's already a competing governing body so as not to place WP:UNDUE weight on one over the other. But in this case for the specific niche of the organization (running across continents), there doesn't seem to be any competing body setting standards, so I don't think we would be falling in to that trap. What do you think? --Habst (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that given the lack of specificity in WP:NSPORT it would be better to fall back to WP:NORG.
There is a substantial difference in the scope of a organisation which competes within a sport vs an “international governing body” of a sport. If a sports team should meet GNG surely a governing body shouldn’t be subject to more lax guidelines?
Also, with regards to the issue of undue weight I would suggest that a high standards of notability should be applied regardless. The status of “international governing body” effectively confers a level of ownership over a sport thus I think there should be a high level of confidence that such a status is widely agreed upon. Jaa.eem (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources discuss the subject at length beyond the previously cited BBC article? Jaa.eem (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even the BBC article doesn't discuss the WRA at length. It mentions it once in the context of the World Runners Club, a related but different organisation. Cortador (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is insufficient sourcing, no in-depth coverage, and the article created as an ad. Cortador (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a redirect, though I think "governing authority" might be a stretch but that's a content issue. Pinging others: @Jaa.eem, @Cortador, @Dexxtrall, what you think about redirecting? S0091 (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the World Runners Association aren't a governing authority, and would be reluctant about a merge if it winds up suggesting that they are. Redirect is fine though, and not entirely opposed to some content being merged if done appropriately ~~~ Dexxtrall (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 04:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. No evidence that these lists are encyclopedic, they've never been discussed as a group in RS. BrigadierG (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 08:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 08:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are nonexistent. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 08:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia isn't a TV guide, this fails to meet the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't pass LISTN as no significant coverage of these items in the list as a group Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are nonexistent. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost reads like a directory. Lorstaking (talk) 09:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 08:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia isn't a TV guide. This fails to meet the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 07:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No opinion on the page in its current format, which does seem to be WP:LISTCRUFT, but it's a notable topic with potential for a valid article, especially given the long-standing legal and political issues surrounding broadcasting rights for major sporting events (mostly football) since 2012, which have been widely covered.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] If the page does get deleted it should be without prejudice to the creation of a proper article. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 06:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, will be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 07:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:NLIST. Sports contracts are dynamic with broadcasters, even more so with the entry of streaming. This list doesn't seem relevant. Svartner (talk) 05:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 07:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see how a bunch of news announcments make a subject notable. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I found [15], [16], and [17], which may help determine notabilty. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 07:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 07:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, the only one source are nothing but announcement, not asserting notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 07:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 07:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. The only source are simply announcment, just not worthy of an encyclopaedic value. Those arguing for a keep must be advised of WP:USEFUL. I also advise those to create a Fandom page for your favorite sport if you want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, all of the sources are primary sources, are nothing but announcements and does not assert notability. @BrigadierG: per suggestion by admin. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to 2002 Commonwealth Games. Athletes need to win a medal for their participation in an event to become notable - seems most reasonable to apply that to countries as well. BrigadierG (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with making that a blanket rule, but many of these countries that send a small number of participants won't generate coverage to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for notifying me. As I'm not sure what they could be replaced with if deleted, I would favour completing those articles rather than deleting them (and subsequently re-creating them with proper content). Either that, or put into Dominica at the Commonwealth Games (etc) the content that they should have, and turn them into a redirect. Aridd (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AusLondonder, did you add these additional articles to this nomination or did someone else? Whomever did it, please move this list of articles to the top of the AFD, above any comments, so that XFDcloser will see them as being part of this AFD nomination. Thank you. LizRead!Talk! 08:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: Thanks, will do. They were towards the top before, appears someone accidentally commented above them. AusLondonder (talk) 09:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to "X at the Commonwealth Games" (where X is country name). Not enough coverage for separate articles, but they look to have 2002 mentioned in their parent articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure a redirect is necessary. The Montserrat page, for example, was averaging views in the single digits per month, not even statistically significant. Most internal links are via templates such as Template:Associations at the 2002 Commonwealth Games. I also don't particularly see how a redirect here fulfils the criteria at WP:RPURPOSE. Also taking a look at the template Associations at the 2002 Commonwealth Games about half the template are redlinks. Finally, the redirects are not plausible search terms. AusLondonder (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Redirect or merge and which is the preferred target? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi 14:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a native of the island mentioned in this AFD discussion title (obvious disclosure), merge and source into Dominica at the Commonwealth Games (as an example). (If possible--for completion's sake--we may as well actually mention the names of the six athletes who participated back then.) --Slgrandson (How's myegg-throwing coleslaw?) 17:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merging just 2002 to the parent articles when no other years, even more successful years, are mentioned, doesn't seem like appropriate balance. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale in my previous nomination, literally irredeemable list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Don't see any reason for deleting these articles. There is encyclopedic value to them. Also WP:NOTTVGUIDE doesn't even cover these pages, at all. "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events" these articles aren't articles on broadcasters, they are articles on the rights/contracts. The rule, to me at least, seems to be there to avoid actual tv guides as in "on this channel, this show is on monday at 8, this at 9..." etc. which is entirely different. Keep the pages around, if some of the country pages lack references then tag the pages for that and move along. For this page literally every entry has a reference so I see absolutely no reason for even trying to delete this. Shadess (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The bar here is showing that there is reliable, in-depth coverage from multiple secondary sources independent of the subject. There is not a single secondary source on this article, every single one is based on a press release and involves no secondary coverage or discussion. Further more, there are no sources that satisfy WP:NLIST - every source trivially covers some specific contract, and none of them discuss the sector of broadcasting rights in Estonia as a whole. BrigadierG (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The bar here is for you to also show why these should be deleted and not just tagged for improving/adding references. I'll say it again, WP:NOTTVGUIDE that you cite as a reason doesn't even cover these pages. Could you address that?Shadess (talk) 12:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> The bar here is for you to also show why these should be deleted and not just tagged for improving/adding references
No it isn't - WP:ONUS. Articles are only kept if they meet either WP:GNG or one of the subject-specific notability standards underneath it, such as WP:NLIST. I can't see there's even a single source that satisfies the notability requirements set up under WP:GNG, so that's my reason for deleting it. And for the avoidance of doubt, the criteria for those sources are the last 4 bullet points of WP:SIGCOV. The issue you're gonna run into is WP:SECONDARY and WP:NLIST requiring discussion of the group as a whole, and not just individual members. BrigadierG (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is just a directory. Mccapra (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 21:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, the sources are announcements or are primary and does not assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Let'srun (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: At least keep the South America article, which is more updated. These articles help out of country viewers information about sports rights in their countries, and as such they serve a reference function worthy of encyclopedic value. The majority are good articles with good independent references and should not be considered for deletion. These lists are not TV guides--Claudio Fernag (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VALUABLE applies. Useful to you but it doesn't mean it should belong on Wikipedia. Is it sourced though? Does it have a reliable third party source that is not news announcements? SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 20:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist, hoping for a little more participation here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 21:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021–22 Guildford Flames season
Non-notable baseball player, fails WP:GNG. This is all the coverage I have found of him and it would fail WP:BLP1E. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some coverage while in college [18], but not really helping notability. He plays in Ireland now, so there is coverage there. [19] and [20]Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet the notability criteria for biographies either in general or for sportspeople specifically. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG, such as [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. And given the vintage there is probably a lot that is not available on the internet. Rlendog (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The subject has received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Thanks to User:Rlendog for digging up these sources. JTtheOG (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not comment on these articles here. If you agree with the proposed deletion, you don't have to do anything. If you think the article merits keeping, the remove the ((prod)) template and make an effort to improve the article so that it clearly meets the notability and verifiability criteria.
Only mention in independent sources I can find are local papers discussing the facility's 2022 sale. Seems to fail WP:NORG. funplussmart (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a Cape Verdean women's basketball player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The best I found was this interview. JTtheOG (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, an Ivorian women's basketball player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. I found some quotes here. JTtheOG (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails GNG and NBIO. BLP, nothing found in article or BEFORE showing this has WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 00:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On a number of wikis, including the Polish and French versions which have both more content and 14 and 15 sources, respectively. A 15-year-player for the Lithuanian national team, have any of the sources been checked? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I finally edited it and Im gonna take a part of Polish Wikipedia
Comment I haven't looked through them but a brief look of Lithuanian sources gives numerous hits, did the BEFORE focus on those or just a general Google search? Alvaldi (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article needs work, the subject seems to be notable basketball player. [28][29][30]Alvaldi (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a harmless list of achievements rather than an indiscriminate collection of stats. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think parts of this article do qualify as an "indiscriminate collection of information". Take the "NBA highs since 1983-84" section. Why is that season chosen as the cutoff? Who is the audience for statistics with that level of granularity? Who is going to take the time to confirm that all of that content is still up to date? The more important achievements should already be listed in the Dwight Howard article. Zagalejo (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 06:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no good reason for this entire category of articles to exist. A person's notable accomplishments should be found in the article about that person. A person's non-notable accomplishments should be found nowhere. There will always be disputes whether a certain accomplishment is notable or not, and such disputes are valid and necessary. This type of article is essentially claiming that there's a whole new category "Sort-Of-Notable-Ish Accomplishments". There is no such category. If it turns out that articles about brilliant outliers with huge lists of notable accomplishments become too long to read, deal with those individually. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, will be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 07:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 07:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Boxer whose only reference is a database entry. There is a draft for a diplomat, Draft: Artur Khachatryan, which will otherwise require disambiguation. The need for disambiguation is not a reason to delete, but the lack of sports notability is Robert McClenon (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This guy fails both WP:GNG and WP:NCRICKET. A search seems to only one article with his name in it and it only covers him tangentially. Allan Nonymous (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found several references using this search by focusing my search on Dawn.com, a leading English-language newspaper in Pakistan. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources here seem to all be tangential coverage of him playing for his team. The first hit isn't even of Abdul Ameer but of a M. Abdul Ameer who seems to be unrelated. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too poor to stay on Wikipedia, not much to salvage around here. Acartonadooopo (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Karachi Kings cricketers Not sure I'm seeing enough in a search to suggest a WP:GNG pass, however there could well be offline coverage. Suitable redirect per WP:ATD.
Comment. Just be WP:BOLD and redirect, these AfD's are tedious and improper where there will be no contention. AA (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Seems like he played for two provincial sides, so I'm not sure which redirect list would be ideal. JTtheOG (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Australian cricketer player, to meet WP:GNG. The closest to WP:SIGCOV that I found were 1 and 2, both from the same publication. JTtheOG (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'd say there's enough in those sources to keep the article for now, given the player has only debuted this season as there will likely be more coverage in the coming future. Wouldn't be against draftifying, but also a suitable redirect at List of South Australian representative cricketers also, so two suitable WP:ATDs. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think 1 and 2 are something which cover independently about the subject, plus there are other refs in the article. These can be considered as enough, since the player debuted just in this season, more coverage is likely to come in future if he continues playing. In terms of SNGs, it meets WP:NCRIC as well. RoboCric Let's chat 05:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although, they cover directly about the subject, the problem is that those are primary sources. Those contain useful information, so I linked those. However, apart from these two, I guess this is a secondary source which discusses about the topic, his education qualification and also his performance. I just wanted to say that since he debuted in this season, all these can be considered enough for a keep. Anyway, if the consensus reached by other editors is not to keep it, then I'll agree with a redirect. Thanks. RoboCric Let's chat 11:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, not enough independent secondary material to meet GNG but there may be in the near future. Redirect. JoelleJay (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Inclined to agree with Rugbyfan22 on this one. AA (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep or redirect to the list of SA cricketers. Drafting this serves zero benefit really - it'll just end up getting deleted as no one will remember the draft is there. If there's not enough coverage for now then redirecting is the normal response in situations such as this - much easier to reverse a redirect and restore the page before adding the additional sources that are likely to appear if he continues to play. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. There is clearly no additional support for Deletion but no consensus yet as opinion is divided between Keeping, Drafting or Redirection. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 06:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 06:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the German Wikipedia, he was a Swiss national champion in cycling and there's several offline sources which are referenced. Those should be checked, and also one should check Swiss newspaper archives, as it seems quite likely a nation's national cycling champion would be covered there. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if the Swiss Cycling Association is independent though? Let'srun (talk) 12:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... true. I was also just able to find what appears to be an online Swiss newspaper archive -- see here. I can't figure out how to get it to work, though... BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a database entry rather than an article currently and I can't find any evidence of WP:SIGCOV in my searches. The best sources found were JPNN, Republika and Detik none of which are even close to showing significant coverage of Nurul Maulidi. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Had a brief career but mostly as a substitute and I can't find any WP:SIGCOV at all in reliable sources. Bola, Viva and Tribun News all confirm that he was a real footballer but none of these are instances of actual significant coverage, which is what is required. Indonesian football was well covered at the time but little was written about Sugiarto it seems. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did have a brief professional career but can't find any clear evidence of meeting WP:GNG, which is what is required. He is not to be confused with the handball player Hassan Walid, about whom plenty of content can be found. My Arabic searches didn't yield any significant coverage about this footballer. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly sourced BLP. Transfermarkt and Soccerway confirm existence but not notability. I found Alyaum but it's a basic Q&A with the footballer and with no analysis. This doesn't count towards WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a Fijian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a Trinidad and Tobago women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. I found lots of prominent mentions in match reports (1, 2, 3, 4), three sentences of coverage here, and a passing mention of her signing in Brazil here. JTtheOG (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Created by a banned sockpuppet, and most of the coverage seems to be WP:ROUTINE. Considered PROD, but decided against given that the sources here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: G5: No other users except for the sockpuppet has made any substantial edits. Additionally almost all references are WP:ROUTINE and as such fail WP:GNG. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed during NPP. Article about a bus crash. No wp:notability per the events SNG or GNG. Also per wp:not news. North8000 (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge a mention that a player and staff died in a bus crash before a match in the main MC El Bayadh article seems fine, but this event has no WP:SUSTAINED coverage and violates WP:NOTNEWS. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (however) I believe this can be covered in the two team club pages, and should be added to the 2023–24 Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 season page along with 2023–24 in Algerian football if it ever gets created. As that kind of information can effect the team big time involve in this competition. I don't see the need for an independent article. Govvy (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
George played in the semi-professional USL League Two at club level. For a player who made two international appearances for his country and started his club career in internet times, you might expect to come across WP:SIGCOV through a web search but I did not find anything close. He therefore fails WP:GNG. (Oh, by the way: the article was previously deleted after its first AfD.) Robby.is.on (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Anwegmann (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have worked on this page for a bit before recognizing that it fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. I have done many searches, trying to find something on this player, and nothing at all of substance comes up. Also, it was previously deleted in an AfD, recreated by the same editor who created it in the first place and approved the second time by a patroller who has since been struck with an indef ban. Could this possibly be a WP:SALT situation? Anwegmann (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A guy who plays in the 4th series of Brazilian football is not notable, not to mention no news coverage of the guy that I can find. Fails WP:GNG. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The athlete competed in youth competitions for the Brazil national team [31], and in Primeira Liga for UD Leiria [32]. There are also articles covering the athlete's career until around 2011 [33]. Svartner (talk) 07:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of these, only one is a source that may... and let me emphasize, may count towards notability depending on how your read WP:DEPTH. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's enough coverage in my opinion, considering that the athlete recently retired. Svartner (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One article is generally not considered enough coverage per WP:GNG. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG, the guy played, as far as I know, exactly one world cup game and recived virtually no coverage for it. He doesn't even have a portugese wiki entry. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have fleshed out the article with those sources plus some more I found since. What do you think, @Govvy:? Robby.is.on (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He played for a few top teams in Brazil, Robby pointed to a few sources, but I would like to see a bit more for my liking. Govvy (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per sources provided by @Robby.is.on. The athlete also had notable spells at SC Internacional, Lecce and Leixões. Svartner (talk) 07:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per improvements, just squeezes by WP:BASIC for me, cheers. Govvy (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Govvy's rationale. Orig nom here: with the changes this does seem to squeeze by WP:GNG now (i.e. a WP:HEY). Although I'm not sure about [1] being independent, given he's a journo intern with a close relationship with the subject. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
he's a journo intern with a close relationship with the subject Where did you glean that information from? Robby.is.on (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I did, too, albeit through a translation service. I couldn't find any signs that the writer of the article had a close relationship with the subject, only that they were a supervised intern ("Estagiário, colaborou sob a supervisão de Heitor Esmeriz"). Robby.is.on (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't see that those were quotes. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There is sufficient coverage of the athlete's career. [37], [38], [39]. Svartner (talk) 07:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, these don't lack the requisite WP:DEPTH necessary to count as coverage except, perhaps [3] and that's only a perhaps. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possible weak keep There are two sources on pt:Maycon Vieira de Freitas and according to that he has played 50 games and scored 16 times for SC Internacional who are one of the big teams in Brazil. I would like to see more sources know, if anyone can provide please do. Govvy (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 14:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources and per an extensive, if not particularly successful, professional career. Clearly notable. Anwegmann (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:GNG. Can only find passing mentions in match reports. Redirect to 2010 World Cup squad. Simione001 (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 14:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has 36 caps for a senior national team and played in a World Cup. Anwegmann (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both irrelevant facts. There are no sources which prove notability in sport and as such the article should be redirect to 2010 World Cup squad or deleted. Simione001 (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No refs on the page for many years. Colleagues at Wikiproject Japan tell me that the page on ja.wiki only has primary sources. There may be sources in Japanese but I'm not seeing anything much to add. JMWt (talk) 05:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This could possibly be WP:REDIRECTed to 1992 AFC Asian Cup#Stadiums or Onomichi#Parks and gardens per WP:CHEAP as an alternative to deletion, but otherwise I'm not seeing how this meets WP:NBUILDING. A Google search of the 広島県立びんご運動公園陸上競技場 really doesn't come up with anything that looks like WP:SIGCOV, and pretty much all of the content in the corresponding Japanese Wikipedia article is unsourced or WP:NOTEVERYTHING kind of content. The only content in the Japanese Wikipedia article that might be worth adding is the stuff about the stadium's naming rights being purchased in 2022. I also found something online about stadium undergoing a renewal in 2022, but that's about it. In addition to the Japanese Wikipedia article, there are six other non-English Wikipedia articles the stadium, but these all are stubs and appear to just be translations of the Japanese Wikipedia article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: why are there no interlanguage links on this page, I wonder? I found the WP:ja article here (sorry, someone please convert to proper 'ja' link); where are the other language articles? I have no knowledge of sport [stop there, really] stadia and the like, but searching in Japanese only finds me primary sources. The name Bingo is geographical: this is the name of the old kuni or province of this area. The naming rights bit is about something called Dasshu Kozakana-kun, (lit. "Dash", as in running, "little fish"), which sounds like a "cute" character name, but I cannot find anyreference to this name not associated with the stadium. So there really is very very little here. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, based on my expansion (added "History" section) and the above sources. The stadium has been a venue for several large international competitions in the 90s, so I think there are avenues for expansion by looking into newspapers from that time period. In addition there are several Japanese-language sources on the web to examine. --Habst (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Habst's expansion, AGFing the Japanese sources that coverage is sufficient. GiantSnowman 18:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I appreciate the new sourcing and section, but the coverage and seeming notability here is quite weak, especially for a stadium that doesn't appear to get regular use and whose last official/notable use was 32 years ago. Anwegmann (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Soccer Canada profile and Tranfermarkt, that's all there is. Nothing in Gnews at all, literally nothing to be found. Delete for lack of any kind of sigcov Oaktree b (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Though I have found sources from offline Canadian newspapers about his career. However, the fact that his career was rather short I fear that this page will never get past being a stub article. Shotgun pete (talk) 03:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ten total career appearances for a team that existed for one year—fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The player appears to have a substantial number of appearances for Reading and Chelsea. I think it's a matter of WP:V. Svartner (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable. Over 200 appearances in England's professional football league (verified by the Neil Brown source in the article sas well as sources like this), while a quick Google search brings up things like this and this which clearly indicate historical (read: offline) coverage. A lazy nomination. GiantSnowman 18:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
are those football cards? ltbdl (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
football cards aren't reliable sources ltbdl (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has that ever been decided? I'd think if it were by a reputable company it would be reliable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that's crazy ltbdl (talk) 06:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Football cards being reliable sources made me literally laugh out loud. AusLondonder (talk) 07:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't a reputable card company be reliable? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the amount of games he played and the clubs he played for seems good enough, combined with GS sources above and probably much more WP:OFFLINESOURCES, this needs improvement for sure. Govvy (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than 200 professional appearances for teams with deep, deep histories and legacies. This is very obvious. Clearly notable. Anwegmann (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and lacks SIGCOV. An actual check of the newspapers.com archive finds nothing but mentions in match reports/transfer stories. He went on to play cricket for Bryant Rose Cricket Club and won the raffle four years in a row there but that is trivial stuff. NFOOTBALL has been depreciated since 2022 so any Keeps based on number of games played must be ignored by the closer. He isn't notable either for playing for some "notable" clubs per NOTINHERITED. Dougal18 (talk) 10:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I frequently see editors citing Wikipedia:But there must be sources! in AfDs for footballers with dozens of international caps. I'd like to see the same standard applied to footballers with "over 200 appearances in England's professional football league". How do football cards indicate offline coverage, @GiantSnowman:? As Dougal18 points out so far it has not been demonstrated that SIGCOV exists. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly per Dougal18's reasoning. Footballers are not inherently notable - they need to meet WP:GNG. This is clear community consensus. Simply asserting that an individual played for notable teams is not a suitable AfD argument. If nothing can be found in newspaper archives, then he's not notable. Another point is this is little more than an infobox and a pseudo-biography. AusLondonder (talk) 11:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a decent amount of newspaper coverage, although it is mostly brief-ish: see [40][41][42][43][44][45][46]. An argument could be made for WP:NBASIC, considering he seemed to have significant amount of appearances for prominent clubs. Not sure if that changes anyone's views: @Ltbdl, AusLondonder, Dougal18, and Robby.is.on:? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Dougal and AusLondoner. Football cards do not contribute to notability at all, and given passing mentions in match reports don't count towards even BASIC for modern players they shouldn't count for old players either. We don't have a single piece of the required IRS SIGCOV, so we have no valid justification for retaining this article. JoelleJay (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He also has a biographical entry in Chelsea The Complete Record: author: Rick Glanvill isbn: 9781909245303 also mentioned in The Little Book of Reading FC - 1920-2008 author: Alan Sedunary isbn: 9781780913711. There maybe more books with biographical information. Govvy (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Glanvill is Chelsea's official historian, he is not an independent source. JoelleJay (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply@JoelleJay: That's not correct, nor is it proper to discredit him. Will you do the same for Historians who went to Oxford and Cambridge and write about those subjects? He is a published author and a reputable one at that. Please don't use this argument ever again on any credited club historian. Govvy (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sports cards are reliable sources stat-wise.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – For the arguments presented so far in the discussion. I see no reason to discredit a club historian, or sports cards, considering that the athlete played in the 50s and 60s. The sources presented by @Govvy demonstrate credibility. Svartner (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source within the entry is the football player database, I couldn't find other sources, and this football player actually only kicked less than 4 years. 日期20220626 (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Without being able to read, write, or search reasonably in Japanese, I am trusting the nom that they could not find any sources on this player in that language. As I see it, though, a four-year career in the Japanese top flight and nearly 30 total appearances verges on notability. Anwegmann (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage. Anwegmann (talk) 23:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage. Anwegmann (talk) 23:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This list of footballers fails that policy because of scant source material, which makes the selection of names almost entirely random. Inclusion criteria are too broad, club goes back to 1929. The player base from most of this era is completely impossible to verify, the list is utterly impossible to maintain and the vast majority of entries on the list would be amateur footballers that fail WP:GNG individually. People that do meet GNG individually, and whose playing for CD Travadores we have verified, can be collected in a category. Geschichte (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – By default, a category for CD Travadores players should be created. The club is not relevant enough for a separate list. Svartner (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable list of non-notable people. GiantSnowman 18:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nomination, fails WP:NLIST. Govvy (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very little is known about this football coach. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Mentioning the name in a list of managers, with a good source, is therefore enough. Geschichte (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NLIST and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The list of seasons can already be found in the main article Girabola, another duplicate article being unnecessary. Svartner (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, Svartner doesn't advocate deletion of the individual seasons, just the overarching list - which adds exactly nothing to the category. Geschichte (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, my question is whether there is a separate list if the main article already includes a list of seasons. Svartner (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Its unneeded. also kind of goes against WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The way the article is made, it may as well just be a category page. Shadow311 (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The seasons are listed in the template. If no other information is in the list article, it becomes pointless. DreamFocus 23:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I am at abstained vote here.) This list could be more useful if done right. As GS pointed out we do have them. And @GiantSnowman: this is the Angolan league, not the Moroccan! :/ Govvy (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice - at the moment this is a duplicative, unnecessary article, but there's the potential for a better article here if someone wants to create something more detailed. SportingFlyerT·C 20:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using RSSSF which lists all the champs... GiantSnowman 20:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...and I've just noticed has pages for every individual season, such as 1979, 1980 etc. As such, if you still don't want to keep, please agree to draftify so I can work on it. GiantSnowman 20:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with draftification, but I do hope it's more comprehensive than just what's on the Girabola page. SportingFlyerT·C 15:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...which it would be if you check my edits to this article... GiantSnowman 20:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a big difference between the Premier League and the Angolan championship. The list of seasons is duplicated, as it is also included in the main article Girabola. Svartner (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That section is absolutely incomprehensible! I have deleted. GiantSnowman 20:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm with GiantSnowman here. This article needs work, but that is not a reason for deletion, especially if it not an obvious WP:TNT. This article has a lot of potential à la List of Premier League seasons, so it's not a TNT. Anwegmann (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NLIST. Random compilation of players, without references and seems to be completely out of scope. Svartner (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete arbitrary list. We don't generally have article for squad lists for one season, these would be included in team season articles if those articles are created and notable, which wouldn't be the case for this team in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Joseph, just nonsense. GiantSnowman 18:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with others, list serves no clear purpose as its own article. Halfadaniel (talk) 05:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list is pretty indiscriminate and unsourced, delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I see the documentary film The Game of Their Lives is cited several times. That could be potential significant coverage, no? We should check to see which ones are covered there; otherwise I worry that the majority – or even whole(?) – of the historic 1966 North Korean World Cup team could be deleted. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Unless the article was improved to show something, which I doubt that will happen, also suggest to go with the redirect. Govvy (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2024 (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.
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. ✗plicit 01:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about a football player that doesn't have context and sources per WP:SPORTSCRIT. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. A quick WP:BEFORE inclusively were databases of football. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 13:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - given that his only claim to notability is playing one match and that match itself being a friendly match not deemed official by FIFA, I'm happy with deletion if GNG is not met. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:48, 21 April 2024 (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.
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. ✗plicit 01:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about a footballer that lacks sources to meet WP:SIGCOV. No context whatsoever from running news searches to validate the article doesn't meet WP:SPORTSBIOSafari ScribeEdits!Talk! 13:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage. Anwegmann (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2024 (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.
Disambiguation page that only has two topics, of the same soccer team, one of which is the active and primary (in fact replaced the former). Hatnotes are already present on both articles. Halfadaniel (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move a discussion to RM, because I don't think there's a PRIMARYTOPIC and the dab should probably be at base. GiantSnowman 18:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nomination, a simple hash note on the top of each article will link the two together. Govvy (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see this article as WP:TOOSOON, as I can only find substantive coverage from the Carese Courier (three articles) and a few Spanish-language sites about him choosing Mexico over the United States. He is 15 years old, has never played a professional match, and only represents Mexico at the under-15 level. I think this article should be draftified, but I understand if the vote is to keep it. I'm curious what consensus will be on this. Anwegmann (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Anwegmann (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @GiantSnowman:, I found [47], [48], and [49] among many more Spanish and English sources. Young player with ongoing pro and international career (already signed pro contractw ith senior Major League Soccer SJ Earthquakes with many sources already. Should be a clear keep if not a draftify at the very worst. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the nom, I'm a bit torn here, as Cowell has never played a pro game and his international career is at the under-15 level. As such, he is not remotely notable as a footballer. I wonder if his current fame, and thus the focus on him, is entirely the result of his brother's success at Chivas and with the United States senior team. I ask myself: Would Chance Cowell be acknowledged at all if his brother wasn't Cade Cowell? And I think the answer is "No, he wouldn't." I think a drafitify is the most appropriate move here, but I nominated the article because I think there's is a fruitful discussion to have. Anwegmann (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He has evidently performed well enough for his youth teams to receive a senior professional San Jose Earthquakes contract at the age of fifteen... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but that means nothing until he appears for the team. What I'm saying is that this is an example of WP:TOOSOON—the player clearly shows potential of being notable in his own right, and may become independently notable in the future, but as of right now, he's not notable enough to deserve his own article based on three caps for an under-15 national team two years ago and a professional contract, but no appearances, for an MLS club. Almost every source of any substance is predicated on him being Cade Cowell's brother. It's not a wasted article, and your work in creating it is justified, generally. But it needs to be draftified until he can "stand on his own," as it were. Anwegmann (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These sources are not new. They were already present when the AFD was created. As such, nothing changes my mind. GiantSnowman 18:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether he ought to get coverage or not isn't really relevant, he's just getting it. So therefore passes GNG. We shouldn't waste time imagining coverage in a world where his brother isn't Cade. Ortizesp (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:YOUNGATH appears to disagree with your reasoning—coverage as individuals that is not local or routine. Almost all English-language coverage is local from his hometown and a large portion of the cited Spanish-language sources are game play summaries, and thus are WP:ROUTINE. By your logic, if they had a random sister who got coverage because she's their sister, she deserves an article. Anwegmann (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources mentioned above fail YOUNGATH, and additionally do not establish him as notable independent of his brother. JoelleJay (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly passes GNG with significant coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:BLP, even if assuming that he passes WP:BARE, we always err on the side of deleting the articles of kids who are actors or athletes, until they are at least 17 or 18. I do not oppose a userfication. Bearian (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked up to see if he actually did have a professional contract as I could have sworn 16 was the age limit for professionalism under FIFA rules (or that California had child labour rules). The Ceres Courier source does say that. But what exactly is so remarkable about this? He's 15 and playing for an academy and an under-15 national team. How many other kids are doing that? I think we should only have articles about youth players who are doing something extraordinary, like Da'vian Kimbrough actually playing a pro game at 13 - for a team that Chance Cowell didn't do so at. I think some on football Wikipedia are currently stretching WP:GNG with younger relatives of footballers, who get a lot of cheap filler coverage but haven't done anything in their own right. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or merge with Cade_Cowell#Personal_life. He likely will be notable, but he isn't now as it's too soon. Either outcome preserves the history for a spinout when he does meet the criteria. StarMississippi 00:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does pass GNG, as you'd expect from a 10.000 seat stadium, but the article needs to be improved. See Portuguese page and [50][51][52]SportingFlyerT·C 20:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While this tenth league tier in Sweden does exist, I don't see the point of it having an encyclopedic entry. There is little to say other than supplying a dictionary definition of Division 8 as well as trivial truisms such as the winners being promoted to Division 7. The reason is that such low tiers only get local news coverage, if even that, making it failing in generating significant coverage. This overview of Division 7 pre-pandemic shows match attendances ranging from 5 to 60. Most districts in Sweden don't even have enough teams to fill tiers as low as this. (I would surmise that Division 5, 6 and 7 should go as well, but I won't make a bundled nomination ever again.) Geschichte (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am inclined to keep, as to not break the chain of this article set. I also feel this is a valid WP:STUB article, even if it is neglected. Govvy (talk) 10:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to pass GNG with significant, in-depth coverage. I also forward that the "chain of articles" argument is invalid, because Division 7 and 6, and maybe 5 should be deleted too. England's lowest leagues do not have articles. Geschichte (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – There is little coverage, but it is understandable as it is the lowest level of Swedish football league system. I think it's worth maintaining the article so it doesn't become a lack. Svartner (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, indeed a very weak keep, for the same reasons that this is a keep—continuity, if nothing else. I admit, though, that the fact that it is part of the Swedish football pyramid alone doesn't justify the article's existence. The majority of leagues in the English football pyramid don't have articles of their own. However, every league between levels 1 and 11 has an article, so perhaps precedent is there to keep this one as well. In any case, I'm not opposed to deleting this article. Anwegmann (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge What should really happen here is the Swedish lower leagues should all be merged into their own article so that we don't lose valid, sourced information, even though the information isn't necessarily notable enough for a stand-alone page. However there's no good merge target - it's something that should happen through editing, so a keep with a plan to merge - it's unusual, but that's what should really happen here. SportingFlyerT·C 20:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to consider merge option, as proposed by SportingFlyer. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not opposed to a merger, and that goes for Division 8, 7, 6, maybe 5 and 4, but is there any valuable and referenced info that is not yet present in Swedish football league system? I don't see any. Geschichte (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not playing in professional division, does not appear to meet WP:SIGCOV under WP:GNG. Already deleted for same reasons in 2020. Crowsus (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Even though they are in a lower division in the season in question, Deportivo La Coruña's notability is undoubted. Svartner (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per last AFD. GiantSnowman 20:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Svartner. Continuity in the coverage of a historically professional team is important in an encyclopedia. Anwegmann (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even know they are a notable club doesn't mean their seasons qualify under the SNG WP:NSEASONS, they are too far down the ladder now. So delete per notability on the season. Govvy (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This season is very notable because of the nature of it and the circumstances regarding the club at this time, as it entered a new era. - Cr7s 190.153.84.93 (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No refs on the page for many years. Not seeing much which could be included however the sources may not be in English. JMWt (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Beni Ebeid, the town it's in. The stadium isn't owned by the football club, they just operate there. The football club Beni Ebeid SC also needs to be merged into the town article. As it doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Beni Ebeid SC as above; not even mentioned at the town article. GiantSnowman 19:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I sent Beni Ebeid SC to AfD, so now it's an inappropriate target! And it is mentioned in the town article now! :/ Govvy (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think it needs fixing rather than deletion! Similar to what I've done to Beni Ebeid SC, I'll update this article one with new content in the nearest possible time. Ben5218 (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the article and added references. It's still a stub, but I think that's enough to keep it. Thoughts, everyone? @GiantSnowman, @Govvy, @Mccapra, @JayCubby.
Comment thanks for finding these Ben5218 but a Facebook post and two pieces of coverage saying the name of the stadium is changing don’t make it notable. I still a merge and redirect to either the club or the town is best. Mccapra (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. GiantSnowman 17:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That Facebook post contains a video discussing the stadium's and club's history, though, and only one reference covers the name change, not two. Since my last comment here, another four references were added (I can find and add more easily, if needed), and I also added more content. This topic definitely passes WP:GNG now, in my opinion. Ben5218 (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lacking in-depth secondary source coverage to meet the general notability guideline. Seen at NPP, moved to draftspace to allow for improvement but reverted by creator. AusLondonder (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize I reverted an initial draftspace sending, I was just editing over time. What sort of sources should I add to make more credibility? There's only a few sources (university, BUIHA and the team's website) I found out to use. Should I improve in the drafter before releasing or try to expand on the existing page? Fastfads (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only mention in independent sources I can find are local papers discussing the facility's 2022 sale. Seems to fail WP:NORG. funplussmart (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Aside from the cogent arguments cited above, with which I agree, this is absurdly trivial. Ravenswing 08:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article for just this seems a bit much. If someone wants to move the individual season information to the relevant yearly draft articles I won't stop them. Deadman137 (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Undrafted player who never played professional hockey at any level. Meets no iteration of NHOCKEY (it was league First Team All-Stars that were afforded presumptive notability, not conference All-Stars). Substantively unimproved in sixteen years. Ravenswing 18:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability, no indepth references about the team, apparently unknown whether they even played a full season, and claims about becoming the Dayton Jets unsourced and unverifiable[54]. Fram (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added references to the page. The claim of them becoming the Dayton Jets comes from the main page Continental Hockey League (1972–1986) though where that was sourced from, or if its even accurate, I don't know.PensRule11385 (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: The added references don't support the notability of the subject, and it is very hard even to argue in favor of notability if there aren't even sources verifying the team's record. This should be redirected to the main Continental league article. Ravenswing 12:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - team record was in the Decatur paper. Received decent amount of coverage in it. I’ve looked at it before, but can’t now as newspapers.com is temporarily inaccessible through the Wikipedia Library. --Hockeyben(talk -contribs) 22:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to shift my view to keeping if actual sources providing significant coverage are cited. Ravenswing 18:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NKICK and WP:NMMA for not having significant coverage from independent, reliable sources where by the sources talk about the subject in dept and in length for verification. Sources found are routine sport reports (announcement or results) which can NOT contribute to the notability for GNG and not ranking world top 10 in mixed martial arts (WP:NMMA]] or world top-10 in K-1 or Glory (kickboxing) or Lumpinee or Rajadamnern champion. Cassiopeiatalk 00:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having one sources indicating his retirement does not pass signification coverage. Need at least 5-7 sources from independent, reliable sources where by the sources talk about the subject in dept and in length for verification. Sources found are routine sport reports (announcement or results) which can NOT contribute to the notability for GNG and not ranking world top 10 in mixed martial arts WP:NMMA or world top-10 in K1 or Glory (kickboxing) or Lumpinee or Rajadamnern champion. Cassiopeiatalk 04:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, there is no requirement of seven significant sources to pass GNG; only "multiple", which could, and sometimes has, meant two sources of depth. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Significant is not means 1 or 2 9couple) or 3 ( a few) or 4 (several). Cassiopeiatalk 03:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NMMA leaves a fairly clear guideline for MMA fighters and I don't see that here. Dan • ✉ 06:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is not notable as per nom. Good faith search shows fight announcements and results. Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NKICK and WP:NMMA. Lacking significant coverage. Article seems to have been created because he fought Andrew Tate which is not enough. Lethweimaster (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. ✗plicit 01:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NKICK and WP:NMMA for not having significant coverage from independent, reliable sources where by the sources talk about the subject in dept and in length for verification. Sources found are routine sport reports (announcement or results) which can NOT contribute to the notability for GNG and not ranking world top 10 in mixed martial arts (WP:NMMA]] or world top-10 in K-1 or Glory (kickboxing) or Lumpinee or Rajadamnern champion. Cassiopeiatalk 00:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nominator, subject doe snot meet notability guidelines. Lethweimaster (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search found nothing that shows WP:NKICK, WP:GNG, or WP:ANYBIO are met. I found some fight coverage and database entries, but no significant independent coverage. In fact, almost all of the coverage was either about his loss to Andrew Tate or listings of people Tate defeated. Removing Tate from my kickboxing search (tried because I found a number of people named "Vincent Petitjean") left me very few ghits. Papaursa (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2024 (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.
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. ✗plicit 01:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NKICK and WP:NMMA for not having significant coverage from independent, reliable sources where by the sources talk about the subject in dept and in length for verification. Sources found are routine sport reports (announcement or results) which can NOT contribute to the notability for GNG and not ranking world top 10 in mixed martial arts (WP:NMMA]] or world top-10 in K-1 or Glory (kickboxing) or Lumpinee or Rajadamnern champion. Cassiopeiatalk 00:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search found no evidence of him meeting WP:NKICK. It also did not turn up significant independent coverage that I believe meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Papaursa (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2024 (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.
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. ✗plicit 01:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no evidence he meets the notability criteria for kickboxers (WP:NKICK). I also didn't see significant independent coverage that would show WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO is met. Databases and fight results are normal for any fighter and his gym's website is certainly not independent. The article is also misleading when it talks about his WKF world championships, since the link is to the World Karate Federation, but his titles were from the World Kickboxing Federation--same initials but two completely different organizations. There's no evidence of him even being a karateka. It was probably used because the World Kickboxing Federation doesn't have a WP entry. Papaursa (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Some sources I found regarding this person so far, all from 2014: April, November, and December. If those are not enough to meet GNG, I would consider delete instead. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Source-1 and Source-2 does not meet the requirement as the subject only mentioned in passing mentioned (fight results are considered routine sport reports and can NOT be use to contribute to the GNG requirements). Source-3 does cover the subject in length but part of the article is not independent for it is partially an interview piece. I will leave source-3 to other editor editor to decide if the source could be contributed to GNG guidelines. To say that, if the source -3 is accepted but only only one source, it does not meet the requirment of significant coverage that the GNG requirements thus it still fails GNG. Cassiopeiatalk 09:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Aside from failing WP:NKICK, I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. There are a few other routine fight results, but not much else. JTtheOG (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2024 (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.
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. ✗plicit 01:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NKICK and WP:NMMA for not having significant coverage from independent, reliable sources where by the sources talk about the subject in dept and in length for verification. Sources found are routine sport reports (announcement or results) which can NOT contribute to the notability for GNG and not ranking world top 10 in mixed martial arts (WP:NMMA]] or world top-10 in K-1 or Glory (kickboxing) or Lumpinee or Rajadamnern champion. Cassiopeiatalk 00:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage appears to be databases and fight results, which are not sufficient to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. His highest MMA ranking at fightmatix.com was #510 which isn't close to meeting WP:NMMA's requirement of a world top 10. I also didn't find any evidence to show he meets WP:NKICK. He had only 1 fight with Glory and he lost that. Papaursa (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2024 (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.
Keep I don't follow this sport, but he is famous in his country and from what I read, he is currently the best and most watched fighter on the Czech-Slovak scene. There are now reliable sources to pass GNG (see also cswiki). He is also author of a book. Imho it might be enough. FromCzech (talk) 10:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's currently a long way from meeting the English WP notability for MMA fighters, which is a top 10 world ranking. The sources on this WP consist solely of database entries and fight reports, nothing close to meeting WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. It appears he authored a self-published autobiography, which does not help the claim of notability. If you could show which references given in his Czech WP article meet this WP's notability criteria, it would be appreciated. Papaursa (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources: mmaservis.cz, remiza.cz, Deník.cz (1, 2). But if it's not enough because of WP:NMMA, I'm OK with that. FromCzech (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding. It's not just that he doesn't meet WP:NMMA but also because I don't think the sources represent significant independent coverage from reliable sources. I looked at the four sources you mentioned. The first is a bio at a Czech MMA website that has lots of MMA bios, with no indication of independent fact checking. It's basically a Czech MMA database. The second is a bio at a Czech sports site, which doesn't appear to be very neutral based on the section titled "Patrik Kincl -the birth of an MMA god". The third is about him signing his autobiography at a book store and the fourth is about the breakdown in negotiations about an OKTAGON promotion title fight. In my opinion, none of these represent the type of coverage I believe is required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I mentioned above my search didn't find significant independent coverage in multiple reliable sources. There are a lot of ghits, but almost all are fight announcements or results, MMA databases, or information from various promotions he's fought for. There's nothing that any pro fighter wouldn't have. If better sources are found, I would be willing to evaluate them (see WP:THREE) and reconsider my vote. Papaursa (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I also know nothing about MMA, but kinda agree with the fact that his CZ Wikipedia page seems better! A few more coverage I discovered there are 2018, September 2021, November 2021, and 2022 – all of which are from Mladá fronta Dnes. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know about the CZ WP, but on the English one the same source counts as one reference, at best. The first reference given is an interview, the second is coverage of his loss for a KSW title, the fourth is an announcement of a fight cancellation, and the third is an announcement for a replacement fight for the one that was cancelled. This is pretty typical sports reporting that can be found for any fighter--nothing that shows particular notability. Papaursa (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, an Australian rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I really found were transactional announcements (2015, 2017). JTtheOG (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, an Australian rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The NRL Rugby piece in the article (archived here) is the best source I could find. JTtheOG (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a French rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The most that came up were interviews (1, 2, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - French professional footballer. Full France international, played for France B, member of the World Cup squad. Over 100 club appearances. 12 sources in place to back this up.Fleets (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. Nice work digging these up. If you or anyone else could present a source with a similar amount of coverage to Source #6, I would happily withdraw the nomination. JTtheOG (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a South African rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Not to be confused with the author of the same name. JTtheOG (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a South African rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT, or much coverage at all past trivial mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all South African rugby league players who played at the same qualifying tournament and were created by the same user under now-deprecated WP:SNGs, with little to no chance of ever receiving WP:SIGCOV:
Procedural keep Discussion needs to be held individually on whether or not these individuals pass WP:GNG. Combining them together could well lead to WP:TRAINWRECK. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a French rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The best I could find was this from Treize Mondial, which is only a couple of sentences. JTtheOG (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a French rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. It's possible I missed something, as Google had a good amount of hits, but really all that came up were interviews (1, 2) and post-match quotes (1, 2). JTtheOG (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Professional footballer who made his Super League debut in 2018, and has made dozens of appearances for another professional club in France.Fleets (talk) 09:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fleets, this !vote rationale is invalid, as participation-based athlete criteria were deprecated 2 years ago and the existing requirement that athletes meet GNG was strengthened to require at least one SIGCOV IRS source be cited in the article from the start. JoelleJay (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Per JT, news items would be the very least to qualify as RSs. Tony(talk) 11:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage is routine or primary/nonindependent in addition to being trivial. JoelleJay (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page has a single reference which is an error 404, context is minimal, and the article is missing anything the team actually did, fails WP:GNGMn1548 (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rugby Football League. Not enough content to justify a stand-alone article in its current state, but it's a plausible search term as the team played several fixtures in the previous century against national teams such as Australia and France. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of IRS SIGCOV, which is required to be cited in the article for all sportspeople. JoelleJay (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Professional rugby league footballer who has played football at the elite level. 5 sources related to his football career.Fleets (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lebanese international rugby league footballer who played multiple times at the Rugby League World Cup. Nine sources.Fleets (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whilst not having an extensive coverage nor a known first grade career, we tend to keep articles of those who have played in the World Cup. LibStar (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if editors arguing to Keep can address the nominator's concern about a lack of significant coverage. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - French international rugby league footballer who has played as a professional in the Super League for the Catalans Dragons on a number of occasions. Additionally as per the cited sources has played as a professional for Toulouse Olympique and at international level for France B, as well as the full national side.Fleets (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rugby League footballer who played for Lebanon at the Rugby League World. 8 sources.Fleets (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of the sources has to be addressed. Geschichte (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting to 2021 Men's Rugby League World Cup squads is an WP:ATD. On that page, one will find his club and cap count at the time (I don't know why rugby doesn't put DoB as well, like football squads). @JTtheOG, note that several other of the Lebanese 2021 World Cup pages are of the exact same build as Josh Maree. Geschichte (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Played in a team that got to a WC QF, nothing is written about his club career, needs expansion. Mn1548 (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 20:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. No evidence of the requisite GNG coverage, merely playing in some league does not meet any notability criterion. JoelleJay (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an English rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Draftification would be an option, but this is a re-creation of an existing draft. JTtheOG (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Professional rugby league footballer who made his professional debut in 2023, played the other day against fellow top level side Warrington in the Challenge Cup. Multiple sources within the article.Fleets (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources 1 and 2 are stats databases, while the next four are trivial mentions of the subject. BLPs require strong sourcing, which is why I draftified it the first time. JTtheOG (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Currently playing in the top tier with five appearances and will likely gain more. Currently borderline on notability for me but will likely be recreated if deleated. Mn1548 (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. He might be notable in the future but that would be speculating. Re-create if and when he plays a few more games and more sources are likely to exist. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are exclusively namedrops, zero coverage here. Arguments to keep based only on his appearing in a particular league are strictly invalid per SPORTSBASIC. JoelleJay (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - two further news sources added referencing academy days, move into first team, and first appearance of the 2024 season.Fleets (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union referee, to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union referee, to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 02:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a New Zealand rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Italian rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG as his career hasn't really kicked on. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 08:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Uruguay national rugby union players Struggling to find significant coverage in a search. Think he has a nickname that he's known by which may lead to coverage, but can't find it currently. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD and saves the history. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The most I found was a few sentences of coverage here in a larger story about South African high schools "poaching" rugby players. JTtheOG (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV are transactional announcements (1, 2) JTtheOG (talk) 04:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were trivial mentions (1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 04:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is a South African rugby union player who has not received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in searches were trivial mentions (1, 2, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A bit of coverage, but I'm not sure enough to suggest a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to be lots of coverage, but not sure there's enough to suggest a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There's this and a couple of other bits, but one more good source would be nice for a keep. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 15:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep' There's this and a few other bits from his time in Scotland, just enough for a keep for me but close. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 15:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this as a suitable redirect, as linking to a current squad (which he might not be part of next season) isn't a good long term option in my opinion. If there was a list of Griffons players article I'd suggest that, but we don't have such lists. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a trade off between supporting a possible search term today and creating future astonishment. I'm going to leave my !vote as it is because right now I care more about today. ~Kvng (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to settle view on a possible Redirect as an ATD. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to meet GNG, and no suitable longterm redirects are available. JoelleJay (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. I found a transactional announcement, as well as coverage of an alleged criminal incident in Spain (1, 2, etc.), but nothing substantial. JTtheOG (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Think there's just about enough in the Spanish coverage combined with other bits for a weak WP:GNG pass. No real suitable redirect per WP:ATD here though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There's a few bits in the article and in a search to suggest coverage is increasing, especially with the players career just starting to kick off. I'd imagine there will be a couple more bits coming in the near future, so perhaps could be draftifyed, but I think worth keeping and expanding as likely the draft will just be deleted. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. I found this transactional announcement and this interview. JTtheOG (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Along with the interview provided, there's also this, just about enough for a WP:GNG pass. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Australian rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Given his age and ongoing career, draftification seems to be a good ATD. JTtheOG (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Think there's enough in the article, plus a search for a weak keep here. Draftification is a suitable WP:ATD if deemed not also .Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Quite a lengthly bio here. Would love one more obvious source, but playing at the highest level still so opportunity for more. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 05:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Plenty of match reports on .za (South Africa) websites, but I don't see anything about this player by himself. Not enough sourcing for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 07:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A single routine profile of unknown independence is not enough to meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There's this and this which are both ok sources, enough for a weak keep in my opinion. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 04:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A routine, brief profile on a site of unknown independence and a routine transfer report with 3 sentences of coverage are not sufficient to meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak deleteWeak keep Looks to be case of WP:TOOSOON on my part, although passed the old WP:NRU guidelines. Lots of coverage including this abut more needed for a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD also. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Change vote to weak keep on additional sourcing found, players career starting to kick off also which may well lead to more sourcing. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable enough. Found a couple of sources, including from the two major online media organisations, which I've added. Greenman (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not comment on these articles here. If you agree with the proposed deletion, you don't have to do anything. If you think the article merits keeping, the remove the ((prod)) template and make an effort to improve the article so that it clearly meets the notability and verifiability criteria.
Non-notable tennis player who fails to meet WP:GNG. Technically meets the requirements at WP:NTENNIS through his wildcard in a local tournament but has no accomplishments as a tennis player that indicate notability. Adamtt9 (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure on this - Is this up for deletion because the article is in bad shape, or that it shouldn't be here regardless? We have List of Wimbledon broadcasters and List of Australian Open broadcasters articles that appear to be sourced much better and are laid out in a satisfactory style. The flags for countries would certainly have to go as against MOS. If this was done in a Wimbledon like style would there be objections? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if there are secondary sources that back up the level of detail included at the Wimbledon article, that would be a good model to follow. The Australian Open article seems lighter on analysis and less obviously makes a case for meeting WP:LISTN, but is still as you note in better shape than the French Open article at issue. signed, Rosguilltalk 12:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per my previous nomination. This was soft deleted and should remain deleted. No merit for keeping this. Again, WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, all but one are unsourced - has anything improved since then? No. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Declined speedy under G4 again, requiring a third AfD nomination. The second AfD fell foul of this and FWIW it was deleted anyway. And nothing has changed. This fails WP:GNG. The coverage remains trivial and doesn't establish notability. It relies too heavily on Cage Match results which - while reliable - do not establish notability. More sources are needed as before and it appears they don't exist even after I tagged this article in early 2022. As this is the third (possible) deletion I would recommend salting if it does go the same way although sending it into draft mode I would agree to. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sydney Morning Herald is fine, but I don't see any other sourcing. What's used in the article is match results and I can't find anything that's in a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even that source was a decade ago, if they're been no media coverage in the years since, I don't think we have notability either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Included in the article are a number of recent sources, one being Sports Illustrated, discussing her move from Australia to the United States in March 2023. There are also a number of recently articles such as Hercanberra, Fightful and the now added Pro Wrestling Illustrated, Slam! Wrestling and Sirensports which focus on her specifically.
Please keep in mind that sources such as Wrestling Observer Newsletter, POST Wrestling, Slam! Wrestling, Pro Wrestling Illustrated and Fightful are considered reliable industry specific secondary sources by Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources and should be included as part of any count of recent sources. For the specific purposes of an article on professional wrestling, these sources are to be treated the same as, say, a newspaper. CeltBrowne (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider them extensive coverage. The Sports Illustrated article is mostly her talking about her move to the US and losing money for half of the article, not the greatest either. Oaktree b (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Analysing sources:Source one [55] doesn't appear to be reliable. The second [56] seems also the same but I am considering the writer who may be an expert. Source three [57] is still unreliable. Source 4 [58] from a reliable source The Sydney Morning Herald was a quite looking like PR post following the underneath writing mentioning her next show. Source five [59] is just a profile and doesn't count up secondary sources. Source six [60] was a quote-like discussion of two other wrestlers which may mention "Shazam". Sources [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71] are all "external links". I don need to stress myself on that. [72] is statistics of Sara Del Rey, though still not from a reliable source. Others seems same and no need to say it lacks verifiability! Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 01:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't mention reliable secondary sources such as Sports Illustrated, Pro Wrestling Illustrated, POST Wrestling, Fightful, and Wrestling Observer Newsletter in your analysis. All those publications are considered the highest tier of reliability on Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources.
I've now added an hour long interview from Talk is Jericho to the article as well as other articles from Fightful. I hope other editors are noting that someone is making good faith efforts to fix the article on short notice. CeltBrowne (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are failing to acknowledge the fact the WP:GNG usurps WP:RS when the mentions are trivial or otherwise against the rules - as the Canberra and Sydney Morning Herald links are per prohibition of promotional links for example. These were both addressed in the previous AfD. Safari Scribe's comments are absolutely on point. Match results are not enough to establish notability - reliable source or not and the others are trivial mentions only. Podcasts can be temperamental as such for the record. Extensive coverage is needed and it's still not there. Again - just because a source is reliable doesn't mean the GNG guideline is passed. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CeltBrowne, Sources are measured by it's content and not because it's a reliable source. At some I stances, we've reliable sources publishing unreliable materials. Look at each's content pls. — Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 08:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has few appearances on NXT,[73][74] Impact/TNA,[75] AEW All Out 2019 (pre-show),[76] and ROH.[77] As a freelancer and indie wrestler, I think her name is recognized in pro wrestling sources; plus considering wrestling for several promotions,[78] her championships and titles,[79] and PWI rankings.[80] --Mann Mann (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mann Mann, that doesn't cover appearing in SIGCOV. WP:NEXISTS can be in the future in this case. Could there be option for draftifying? Because I can see that smelling! — Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 08:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may not be familiar with Pro Wrestling Illustrated or it's Top 500/Top 250 but within WikiProject Professional Wrestling, PWI is considered A) a reliable, secondary source and B) Their Top 500/Top 250 lists are actually considered a very potent source for judging notability. PWI takes its modern Top 250 women list extremely seriously (PWI's annual Top 500 and Top 250 issues are always their best selling issues of the year; their entire business model revolves around it). These lists cover professional wrestlers the entire world over (not just the United States). The higher the listing, the more notable the subject is.
As Mann Mann linked to, in 2023 (the current most recent edition) PWI listed McKenzie as number 88 on their Top 250. This placement would mean they are classifying her as the 88th most prominent woman in professional wrestling, beating out hundreds of other candidates from across the US, Japan, Mexico, UK, EU, and other wrestling hotbeds.
Please note, the PWI 500 is not simply a throwaway "list"; it is an entire issue of PWI and most of the those listed will receive at least a blurb explaining who they are and why they have been positioned on the list. CeltBrowne (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pro Wrestling Illustrated's top list does not provide significant coverage for anyone outside the top ten or even just the number 1 - and even then it's debatable. Your comment is laced with original research and again presumes that WP:RS is enough for notability. It is not. There must be significant coverage or the source fails the WP:GNG test and is therefore not notable. How many times does this need to be said for you to understand this? Addicted4517 (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
McKenzie does not have to be the main topic of the Top 250 list in order for this to count towards SIGCOV, particular as the list in-of-itself is a reference point who is notable within professional wrestling (particularly as other reliable secondary sources give extensive coverage to who makes the Top 500 and Top 250). This in the same sense that no one song is the main topic of Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time, but their inclusion in a list from a reliable secondary source is significant.
Also while the PWI blurbs can be short, they are not "trivial mentions" in the sense that is outlined in WP:SIGCOV (The Clinton/Three Blind Mice example). The blurbs directly discuss their subjects and outline what they are achieving at the time. Each blurb is directly discussing their subject (as opposed to the Three Blind Mice example in which they are decidedly not the subject of an article about Bill Clinton).
Pro Wrestling Illustrated's top list does not provide significant coverage for anyone outside the top ten or even just the number 1 - and even then it's debatable
The 2023 edition of the PWI Top 250 makes clear[81] that PWI has a strict criteria for deciding who is and is not eligible for their list. An entire committee legitimately debates who should be included and where. Each entry on each wrestler outlines what they have achieved in the year and gives an outline of who they are. These are decidedly not the "trivial mentions" outlined in WP:SIGCOV. They are short but succinct explanations of why that person is significant within professional wrestling for that year.
This is all besides the fact that in addition to her Top 250 ranking, PWI also gave dedicated coverage to McKenzie in this [82] article, which is included in her Wikipedia article and should be noted towards WP:SIGCOV as well as the other dedicated articles/interviews such as Slam![83], Fightful, Siren Sports, and Talk is Jericho.
Is it the case that this article would be improved by more examples of dedicated coverage of the subject? Yes
Is it the case that this article has little or no instances of dedicated coverage? No. It does have several instances of dedicated coverage by reliable secondary sources.
I indented your comment properly. Please indent this way in the future as it avoids confusion. Aside from that everything that you said there again seeks to push a reliable source above the GNG and SIGCOV tests. Short - by definition - is trivial. The comparison between a list of wrestlers and a list of songs is completely irrelevant. Dedicated coverage does not equal significant coverage, because dedicated and still be shirt and therefore trivial. The Sempervive interview is on You Tube and I will remove that. You Tube should never be used in a BLP - ever. The Slam wrestling article is in direct violation of WP:SELFPUB (the subject write it herself). Bottom line - a list is not appropriate by itself to prove notability. It may add to it but it can not be relied upon. Addicted4517 (talk) 04:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You Tube should never be used in a BLP - ever.
Please show me a guideline which states this.
The Slam wrestling article is in direct violation of WP:SELFPUB (the subject write it herself).
It's not SelfPub. Selfpub is when John Smith writes something for JohnSmith.blog, a website Smith control and runs themself. Slam! Wrestling is an Independent reliable secondary source per Wikipedia:PW/RS which McKenzie was asked to write a guest feature for. It's a primary source which can be used to make WP:ABOUTSELF statements, which is what it was used for.
a list is not appropriate by itself to prove notability
No one is arguing it is on it's own. It's to be taken together with all the other sources being provided, obviously. CeltBrowne (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]