Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sportspeople: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Sistorian (talk | contribs)
403 edits
Sistorian (talk | contribs)
403 edits
Line 7: Line 7:
==Sportspeople==
==Sportspeople==
<!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
<!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John West (cricketer, born 1861)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Meston}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Meston}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Greene}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Greene}}

Revision as of 19:47, 2 August 2022

Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Sportspeople. 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:
  1. 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.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Sportspeople|~~~~}} 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.
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 other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Sportspeople. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
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.


Purge page cache watch

See also: sports-related deletions, people for deletion


Sportspeople

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. It is not substantially contested here that the kind of sources required by WP:GNG have not been found after two weeks of searching. That being the case, the "keep" opinions are so weak that they have to be discounted: they use arguments now rejected by community consensus, i.e., that playing at a certain level of sports automatically establishes notability. A redirect closure per WP:ATD is also not possible because nobody has proposed a redirect target. Sandstein 08:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John West (cricketer, born 1861)

John West (cricketer, born 1861) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources as required by WP:SIGCOV. The sole source is a statistical database only. Sistorian (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and England. Sistorian (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The “database source” in this case contains a significant prose discussion of West’s career - likely his Wisden obituary. This is often the case with Middlesex players and demonstrates clearly that anyone nominating articles sourced to CricInfo needs to click the link to check. As a result there is suitable coverage already and that’s before we go and look in a range of other places such as Middlesex histories. The nomination is, unfortunately, not using a valid rationale in this case. Shame that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are also a number of passing mentions - for example, one on the Notts website - and some details appear in an paper in Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies, 15/1 by Keith Sandiford titled Amateurs and Professionals in Victorian County Cricket. Unfortunately I don't have access, but the snippet available in a google search suggests that there's a bit more detail there as well. He also appears mentioned several times in Cricket magazine and in an edition of Wisden, some of which is available online. This suggests that there will be more in other editions of Wisden. I imagine there's enough if someone has the time to suggest quite strongly that this passes WP:BASIC levels of sourcing. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Square Thing, the Cricinfo discussion is anything but significant because it is simply statistics dressed in prose clothing. The only non-statistical information it provides, other than what is already in the article, is West having been on the MCC ground staff, which is hardly significant. I presume you could add the statistical information to the information box, as seems to be the usual practice. If you intend to expand the article using statistics only, albeit in prose form, then I do not think that will comply with WP:NOT (in the section labelled WP:NOTSTATS) and the article will still lack significant coverage because "multiple sources are generally expected".

If there is more information in histories of the Middlesex club then by all means include it. As I understand things, though, the article must cite reliable sources and cannot be left in a "before we go and look" scenario. I am still new to this, I must point out, so please explain if I am misunderstanding the process in any way. Thank you.

Sistorian (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination says The sole source is a statistical database only. That is patently not the case. Not only have you not looked to check if there are any other sources about West - which is strongly encouraged - you haven't checked the source which was in the article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It patently is the case when the half a dozen lines of prose consist almost entirely of statistics with words between the numbers. The case is well put by User:Wjemather below. The coverage is brief to the point of insignificance.
With all six of the articles I have nominated, I carried out a Google search and found nothing except Wikipedia, its mirrors, sources already in the article like ESPN, and other statistical sites which do not seem reliable. You have said before that there may be content in Middlesex club histories but I do not have access to such books. As I understand the significant coverage requirement, there must be multiple reliable sources and they must be cited in the article. Please do not assume I have not checked Google or the ESPN article. I assure you I have.
Sistorian (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help but think if the first thing a new editor does is add six articles for deletion, they think something needs fixing with the project which they don't understand will take more than a batch-add of deletion discussions. There are better ways to handle content than adding everything that displeases you, as a new editor, to AfD. There are issues here which date back years, not just a month since you discovered the site and became au fait uncharacteristically quickly with deletion discussions and ArbCom cases. Bobo. 08:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had access to Wisden from somewhere, as I say, if you have access, feel free to add, otherwise really telling me that I'm wrong in giving others impetus to help out is counterproductve. My main point was that these issues are not taken to WT:CRIC first and need to be otherwise we get half a dozen delete votes from people who have nothing to contribute, and a fair number of contributions to the article in the interim... but that's happened many times and won't stop in a hurry. Bobo. 12:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As already indicated by BST, it would seem clear that the Cricinfo profile contains the entirety of the Wisden obit; since it does little more than summarise his statistics, it barely reaches the threshold of significant coverage. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For someone who played that number of games, and umpired an official test it is highly likely that GNG passing sourcing exists. His name is particularly common, obviously with tuna, other cricketers and other umpires in other sports so searching is difficult, but with what we have and what we know I imagine there will be GNG passing sourcing out there. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having looked into this some more and slept on it, I think there's a really interesting story here, but it's going to take some serious work to unpick all the strands and piece together all the pieces - at least two or three days worth of work and picking through newspapers and so on. And that's without access to old and expensive Wisdens. I will, hopefully, find time to do that work, but it won't happen for days if not a few weeks and it'll be quicker if nothing else comes up that is a higher priority. For that reason I'd rather keep the article for now at least. If the story doesn't pan out the way I think it will then it'll be obvious in six months time I guess. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. Currently, the article fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, as well as being a WP:NOTDATABASE violation. Normally, this would warrant deletion, but since Blue Square Thing believes they can improve the article, given sufficient time, I believe draftification would be a suitable compromise; either they can improve the article and it is returned to article space, or they can't and we don't need to waste our time with a second AfD in six months. BilledMammal (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There wouldn't be a second AfD. I'd redirect it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting by request. I'll let another admin close this AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify I never found any SIGCOV on him in the British Newspaper Archive, perhabs I gave up to soon as there are ALOT of articles of people with the same name. This message board is the best I found. Of course, it can´t be used as a source but someone there did have better luck of finding some information on him so maybe someone here can use it to help narrow their searches. Alvaldi (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He's in Wisden plenty of times, the problem is getting access to really old (and expensive) Wisdens. Note that I would suggest very strongly that drafting this article is completely against a long-term consensus at AfD which has been established since at least 2018 to redirect if nothing can be found. I think in this case there is so much evidence of sources existing that there's an argument for keeping, at least for a period of time, but would much prefer a redirect to drafting. If it's drafted it won't get worked on (I can absolutely guarantee that I won't work on it) and will be deleted in six months. If it's redirected it may get worked on, we retain the attribution and source history and we retain the links to and from lists etc... Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Blue Square Thing Redirecting it is also fine by me. Alvaldi (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there hasn't been a single delete !vote on this article and the nomination was by a sock-puppet. Was deletion review even mentioned at the time? Deletion review only gave us one !vote to relist. Was re-listing really necessary? As we've said, there's a lot ot unpick that we won't get done overnight. Bobo. 08:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? How about you source this instead of obsessing over process. You do have a source don’t you? Spartaz Humbug! 14:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically I probably care less for process than almost anyone else. "Process" gets in our way of achieving our goal. Unfortunately, as a project, we have reached an impasse as regards what that goal is. Some of us think the project should be horizontal, some of us think the project should be vertical, and in many cases, ne'er the twain... Bobo. 19:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t make needless procedural objections if you don’t consider process important unless you want to be accused of process wonkery. There is no impasse, there was a massive fuck off RFC that set a standard. Folks just arguing contrary are being disruptive and clearly throwing sand into the gears to slow down the inevitable cleanup. There was an arbitration request that reinforced the risks of that behaviour. Spartaz Humbug! 18:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we were working to the same goal, no "process" would be needed. And an "inevitable" clean-up which will not happen without the mass-deletion of dozens of articles of players with scores of appearances, contrary to the goals of the project. A tragic indication of what we have become. Bobo. 19:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You make my point perfectly. Firstly you put the aims of your wikiproject ahead of the expressed desire of the community and a settled community consensus and then you have the effrontery to assume that I am working to different goals then you. Next you will be applying some silly label as a way of making it ok to ignore an opinion reflecting community consensus. Classy. Spartaz Humbug! 16:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete none of the keep votes are based on policy established at an extremely well attended RFC that requires sports bios to have at least a single decent reliable source. As Noted cricinfo is a sports database (a bloody brilliant one) but turning statistics into propose is not an RS. The closing admin should note that there is an entrenched WP:Cricket contingent voting here who are clearly opposed to the will of the community but have singularly failed to provide the required source. wiki projects do not have the right to stick two fingers up to the community and force through non policy based outcomes by making frankly risable non policy based arguments. If the sourcing is not provided then the policy based outcome is delete although personally I think its high time lists of cricketers by team and period were created for these articles so we can simoly redirect them until the sources are found. Spartaz Humbug! 14:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete. Per the arguments from BST, BM, Alvaldi, and Spartaz. I agree that SIG sourcing needs to be shown to exist, but that redirection is viable until then. JoelleJay (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The guidelines are quite clear that a source that fails NSPORT but passes GNG can and should be kept. Some keep !voters are asserting the subject passes GNG (not NSPORT) which would be grounds for keeping regardless of the RFC, but I'd like to see some actual evidence of that if I'm going to !vote to keep. To say that "Keep because GNG" is "not based in policy" is simply false, but on the other hand, I'd like to see some evidence that he actually passes it. Smartyllama (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We know, because there are the odd snippet views, that there are mentions in Wisden. Beyond that, we know that he was on the MCC's staff for a long period - until way after he finished playing which is odd - and was given two benefit seasons by Middlesex, the first player to be given a second; both of those were after he'd finished playing as well. We know that players like this were profiled in Lillywhite's guides - for example, the other John West is profiled here. The problem is that we can't access those sources. And he umpired a Test.
There's something going on here and I'm 99% certain that a) sources exists and b) there's a story that's worth looking into. But it's going to take time and effort. I'm hopeful, per the discussion going on about access to sources at the cricket project, that we might have a way in to some of those sources - thanks to Spartaz's connections.
Can I show sources exist right now? No, I can't - beyond snippet views and the like. But this John West played 86 matches compared to the other John West's 52. He had two benefit seasons compared to one match. There's something there you know - the message board post that Alvadi found suggests as much. But there's no online sourcing.
So, if it has to be redirected, fine. I'll see what I can find and bring it back as a test case at some point if I'm able to. If people are happy to give it six months in main space, then that's fine as well - if I've found nothing after that I'll redirect it myself. If you really must delete it then go ahead, delete it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2022 (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 keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Meston

Sam Meston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources as required by WP:SIGCOV. The sole source is a statistical database only. Sistorian (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the ESPN paragraph is another example of statistics put into words, as is the case with the John West article. It adds nothing of value to the brief information already in the article, except perhaps that Meston was an amateur player. I cannot say if that is important or not.
Sistorian (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curious to that this user claims to have one month's experience on here, having created zero articles, then all of a sudden magically appears nominating articles like a pro at AfD. I doubt they are a new user, through their deletion nom of a female international cricketer is pretty ironic considering their userpage blurb. StickyWicket (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:AssociateAffiliate. In the words of Michelle Madow: "Everyone has to start somewhere. If you let people bring you down now, you'll never know how high you could climb. And you owe it to yourself to try".
I am not aware of any requirement to create articles before venturing into AFD. I have followed the WP:AFDHOWTO and Twinkle instructions very carefully. These are clear and well written so, as (I think) I am fairly bright, I have been able to place my first few entries. I have not, however, had the confidence to try a WP:MULTIAFD yet, which would perhaps have been the ideal way to present the Meston/Greene/West cases. I will make sure I can manage individual entries first and then try a multiple one someday.
As for nominating two female cricketers, their articles lack significant coverage and I am not a feminist, let alone a militant feminist, so I fail to see any irony. You refer to my "userpage blurb" and, yes, I am a woman and a lesbian and an environmentalist and many other things. If you have any problems with those, then I am sorry but they are me and I doubt if I will ever change. Do please reconsider your decision to retire, however, because something like this can hardly be worth getting steamed up about.
Sistorian (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meeting NCRIC certainly does not mean that a subject meets GNG by extension. –dlthewave ☎ 12:48, 3 August 2022 (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 redirect to List of Gloucestershire County Cricket Club players. Liz Read! Talk! 21:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Greene

Robin Greene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources as required by WP:SIGCOV. The sole source is a statistical database only. Sistorian (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2022 (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 14:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Barza

Enrique Barza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

According to the article and its sports-reference source (here), Barza participated in the Olympics twice, in 1968 with Men's Foil Individual fencing and in 1972 with Men's Sabre Individual fencing. However, when I access the full results on Olympics' official website, I can't find Barza among the participants (1968 and 1972). The only mention of Barza is over at IMDb (unreliable per WP:IMDB) stating that he appeared in a film called "Munich 1972: Games of the XX Olympiad" as the Peruvian flagbear, and corroborating the article's other facts, such as Barza's birthday. As all claims of the article are either unverifiable or sourced to an unreliable source, I propose deleting this page so that we can remove the claims, deletion being the only way to do so as the claims has stayed roughly the same since its creation. Thank you. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Barza's surname is also spelt "Barúa". However, I cannot find a Barua at the Olympic website either. Thanks. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Olympics website does not directly bring you to the fencing article. Instead, choose "Fencing" from the list of sport, then the event from the drop-down menu on its right. Separately, a Google search does not turn up any Barza or Barua results unrelated to Wikipedia. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:37, 9 August 2022 (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 no consensus. I do not believe a third relist is likely to get closer to a consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hamdy El-Said

Hamdy El-Said (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMMA and WP:NOLY. His highest ranking by Fight Matrix is 104th in the world heavyweight rankings, which is not even close to the top 10 requirement. He also failed to win a medal in his appearance at the 2016 Summer Olympics, having been eliminated in round 16. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 13:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete He fails WP:NMMA, WP:NSPORT, and WP:MANOTE. He lost his first match at the Olympics and doesn't appear to have ever competed at an adult world championship event. The articles I found, including those in the article and the ones mentioned by TheCatalyst31, were about his loss at the Rio Olympics, his signing of a UFC contract, and at least three heralding the fact he was the first Egyptian to win a UFC fight. I don't think that coverage is significant enough to meet WP:GNG. At best I'd say it's WP:TOOSOON. Papaursa (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I'd say the articles linked by TheCatalyst31 just get him over the GNG bar. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in light of new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 16 August 2022 (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 11:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tio Cipot

Tio Cipot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, no sources were provided that would indicate significant coverage, only the regular match reports / contract extension reports Snowflake91 (talk) 09:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are routine reports like contract extensions or match reports, you can find this for literally any player that signed a pro contract with the club. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per above. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 20. By the time I finish writing this, another twenty will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Other WikiProjects doesn't delete 20 articles per day" is not a reason for keep, and you literally copy/paste that same reply at every AfD, for example at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pascal Estrada, but at least there you managed to provide some in-depth coverage, unlike in this article. Where is the in-depth coverage of this player that goes beyond "Tip Cipot extended his contract until 2026" and a regular match reports? Looks like people are just trying to mass-keep those poor articles because of their disagreement with the WP:NSPORTS new notability standards, so they try to provide some "in-depth" sources which in reality are just routine reports...how about you create just 1 well-written, long article with many sources per day, instead of creating 20 full-stub, half-done, one-sentence articles per day about barely notable or non-notable footballers? Snowflake91 (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2022 (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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Junpei Oka

Junpei Oka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:52, 2 August 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shohei Kawakami (gymnast)

Shohei Kawakami (gymnast) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2022 (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. Spartaz Humbug! 16:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolette Lim

Nicolette Lim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable gymnast with no medals at national and international levels. WP:BEFORE done with no SIGCOV. Singapore's local newspaper archive does not yield any coverage. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep She won a metal at the ASEAN School Games. Came out as a sexual harassment victim which has significant and sustained coverage. I've expanded the article and added the sources. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 05:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Her ASEAN School Games medal does not pass WP:NGYMNAST, SIGCOV comes from as a victim which we should avoid per WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 05:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a difference between highlighting someone being a victim of a crime and someone speaking out because something happened to them. In this case Nicolette coming out for being the victim of harassment is more in line with the Me Too movement then just coverage of her being harrassed. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 20:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Her athletic achievements do not seem to establish notability - no Olympic appearances as far as I see, and youth-level achievements do not cut it. No medals at senior competitions. There does seem to be sourcing re sexual harassment allegations - however, we do not even have a page for Eden Ang, so keeping a page because she accused him of harassment has a page seems incongruous. WP:AVOIDVICTIM also applies, as noted above.--‡ El cid, el campeador talk 20:09, 23 August 2022 (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 keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anish Khem

Anish Khem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOLYMPICS and lacks WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taione Kerevanua

Taione Kerevanua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Malakai Kainihewe

Malakai Kainihewe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that Kainihewe is probably non-notable, but I must note that the locality of coverage is completely irrelevant when trying to determine if someone passes GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2022 (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 keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samuela Kautoga

Samuela Kautoga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:31, 2 August 2022 (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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Moncherry

Adam Moncherry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2022 (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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Detlef Dahn

Detlef Dahn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Did not win a medal and was eliminated in round two, so fails NSPORT BrigadierG (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the significant coverage in Märkische Oderzeitung to the article, in accordance with WP:SPORTCRIT #5. StAnselm (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. National champion in boxing and bronze medalist at European champs. Clearly notable. - Darwinek (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, these keep votes are in direct contravention of the new WP:NSPORTS, which explicitly disavows simple participation-based claims of notability. If there isn't significant prose coverage, we can't assume notability, period. Even if we were accepting such a thing, bronze medal in an amateur competition is hardly evidence that he is "clearly notable". I hope the closing admin regards these keep votes with the minimal weight they deserve. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are achievement based (i.e. winning something) rather than participation based. That's a crucial distinction. StAnselm (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, the article clearly passes WP:NBOXING. StAnselm (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And NBOXING clearly states that meeting those criteria means "significant coverage is likely to exist", not that the person is presumed notable. We literally just had an RfC about this. NSPORTS criteria no longer provide presumed notability, only that they spell out situations where editors feel that coverage is likely to exist. In this case, we have one regional article. That wouldn't be enough SIGCOV for a GNG pass for anyone else, and sportspeople no longer get a different standard. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And there is coverage that we can't put lay our hands on. The German wikipedia article lists Fachzeitschrift "Boxsport" 1962 bis 1970 and "Sport-Almanach", Sport-Verlag Berlin (Ost), 1966 bis 1970. With what we already have in the article, we can be satisfied that these offline German references are going to be enough for a GNG pass. StAnselm (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Without having reviewed them yourself, how can you assume that they are significant coverage? For all we know, they're simple stats tables or lists of participants.
In fact, "Fachzeitschrift "Boxsport" 1962 bis 1970" translates to "Boxsport magazine 1962 to 1970," which is useless as a source as it is just a range of years for a particular magazine. The same goes for the almanac - it's just a range of years, not actually a citation to a specific source or even a specific issue. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it could be a range of issues, but that might simply means he's in every issue. One of them are these ones, but later years. Anyway, do we assume good faith for editors on other language wikis as well? StAnselm (talk) 04:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith or not, we cannot possibly be expected to make the assumption that the subject appears in every single issue in that range, nor that each appearance necessarily constitutes significant coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: recommend draftifying instead. Reevaluating the sources gives me some pause, as there is a detailed profile of him in there, and with the addition of (largely routine) recaps of some of his fights there's rather more potential here for further SIGCOV offline. JoelleJay (talk) 00:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found a particularly useful source (and a couple of passing references) in Armeerundschau and added them to the article.--Jahaza (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By "three paragraph" do you mean actual paragraphs, or just double-spaced sentences? JoelleJay (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I meant paragraphs because that's how they were typeset. I didn't count the sentences. Feel free to take a look yourself (or even search for some more sources to improve the encyclopedia!) But in the meantime, WP:AGF.--Jahaza (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We regularly get editors claiming double-spaced sentences are "paragraphs", it's not unreasonable or ABF to clarify. The source looks like a standard match recap... JoelleJay (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The source looks like a standard match recap..." Not surprising since that's what I said it was. Jahaza (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not very convinced that the sources other than the first are significant enough, but very well, I'll abstain from this one. Avilich (talk) 02:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Maybe more detailed source analysis will resolve this
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 16:51, 24 August 2022 (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. WaggersTALK 13:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Estevan Payan

Estevan Payan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMMA. His highest ranking by Fight Matrix was 81st in the featherweight division, and he has never previously appeared in Sherdog's rankings. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 01:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The articles from MMAFighting and MMAJunkie are literally just fight announcements with a little bit of info about both fighters padded in. This is pretty routine and standard coverage you come across with most mixed martial artists, nothing significant to pass GNG I'd say. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 16:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's clear he doesn't meet WP:NMMA and a boxing record of 1-15-1 clearly fails WP:NBOX. His fight for a "world title" in lethwei (a Burmesa martial art) is somewhat dubious given it was his first and only lethwei fight and took place in Wyoming. Of course, anyone can create a organization and have world championships, but it needs to be a credible organization to show WP notability. That leaves WP:GNG which is not generally considered to be met by fight results, announcements, and databases--all pro fighters can show those. The fact that his name appears in an article's title is no indication of meeting WP:GNG when the bulk of the article is just a listing of the fights on that card or of results. Given his fight records, it's not surprising he's never come close to, much less won, a major title. Papaursa (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't for a world title in Lethwei, I dont know where you saw that. It was also not Lethwei as per World Lethwei Federation, if you read the article. I agree with point mentionned. Lethweimaster (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that in the article's fight records section where it says "For the inaugural Cruiserweight World Lethwei Championship Title." Papaursa (talk) 12:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I follow Lethwei pretty closely, I know this fight was not for world title. Also no mention of it the article by Lethwei World. They even explain that the fight was not considered Lethwei. [20] Lethweimaster (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 00:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Bradley

Kyle Bradley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMMA. His highest ranking by Fight Matrix was 83rd in the lightweight division, and he never previously appeared in Sherdog's top 10 rankings. A WP:BEFORE shows up no significant coverage either. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 00:19, 1 August 2022 (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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Moret

Dan Moret (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMMA. His highest ranking was 41st at lightweight, his current is 113th. A quick WP:BEFORE doesn't show any significant or in-depth coverage. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 00:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete His record isn't very impressive at the highest level and he clearly fails to meet WP:NMMA. More importantly, I don't see that WP:GNG is met. There are a lot of references given, but they tend to be database entries, fight announcements, and reporting of fight results. That's the stuff that every pro MMA fighter gets and isn't really anything that shows notability (or can be considered significant independent coverage). Papaursa (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2022 (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 no consensus. Star Mississippi 01:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ferenc Velkey

Ferenc Velkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Olympian who fails GNG. There is an academic of this name who is probably a different person. Avilich (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The basketball player is called "Velkei", not "Velkey". They may be identical, but of the sources in the Italian page this database shows no awareness of it, and I cannot confirm it with this source either. Avilich (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@StAnselm and Avilich: It was the same person according to [21] and Olympedia lists both surnames. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever their identity, sportspeople need to have received significant coverage according to WP:SPORTCRIT#5; participation in notable competitions was deprecated as a criterion of notability in this RfC, and I'm still not seeing how this person meets GNG. Assuming all of your search hits down below are about him, they appear not to meet criterion #4 which requires "reports beyond routine game coverage" and beyond mere passing mentions or team member listings. Avilich (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to the search results above, would you mind explaining why they meet criterion #4 of WP:SPORTCRIT which requires "reports beyond routine game coverage" and passing mentions? Your Małolepszy 2013 source also contains no prose and is just a team roster. Avilich (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While it is clear that the majority of the coverage is passing mentions in routine sports coverage, as it is for any sportsperson, it seems very likely (if not almost certain) that many of the hits on Arcanum Digitheca contain significant coverage (e.g. "Velkei Ferenc the famous Hungarian international referee...", "Only of these Velkei Ferenc was an international referee at the age of 50...", "Vel­­key Ferenc today the referee who is Bp Vörös...", "According to Ferenc Velkei, deputy general secretary of Hungarian basketball...", "Ferenc Velkei is a multiple Hungarian national team player...", "...we inquired with Ferenc Velkei, the international commissioner of the MKOSZ...") – unfortunately the snippets are extremely brief (and Google translate does an awful job of translating them) and Arcanum is paywalled. There are even more hits by extending the date window up to the present. For me, it is unreasonable to think there is no significant coverage in these local language sources. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2022 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agustín Eizaguirre

Agustín Eizaguirre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A football player who's claim to notability is winning an olympic medal *despite not actually playing a single minute on the pitch*. I know olympic medal winners are generally considered intrinsically notable. Does this extend to people who never actually played? BrigadierG (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2022 (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. None of the keep arguments have provided any meaningful analysis of the sources they assert pass GNG and bare assertions do not carry weight. Non policy based and IAR arguments do not carry much weight against the professed will of the community on sports bios. The delete side includes analysis of the sourcing that shows it does not pass gng and no attempt has been made to refute this. Spartaz Humbug! 16:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Pérez (footballer)

Francisco Pérez (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. The source does not mention the name "Francisco". FAdesdae378 21:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

StAnselm, the added sources look like passing mentions to me. Do you disagree? –dlthewave ☎ 02:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sufficient sourcing already in the article to show notability. GiantSnowman 17:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, GiantSnowman. Could you please explain which sources provide in-depth coverage of the individual? MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you asking only me when others have !voted keep as well? GiantSnowman 07:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You have said "sufficient sourcing", so I would like to understand what these are. Would you care to answer the question? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keepDraftify - Article about footballer who primarily played in the amateur era of Argentine football, when he was selected to the national team that competed at the 1934 FIFA World Cup finals. I can't locate in-depth coverage in online coverage, but he receives passing mentions, and I think it's reasonable to expect that offline (print) sources in the 1930s will have SIGCOV. Updating because I checked some of his 1934 FIFA World Cup final teammates, and there is online SIGCOV for the more notable ones. I suspect print sources will provide SIGCOV, but nobody here has access to those yet. Jogurney (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per above. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 20. By the time I finish writing this, another twenty will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Das osmnezz, I'm not aware of a policy or guideline that allows an article to be kept in mainspace with the hope that notability will eventually be demonstrated. That's what draft space is for. Is there a good reason to keep instead of draftify in this instance? –dlthewave ☎ 02:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Every single source in the article is his name in a list or in pure, primary stats. There is not a single source of SIGCOV here, so the article objectively fails our guidelines. The only way a keep !vote in this situation can be valid is if it introduces a source meeting SPORTCRIT #5 or explicitly advances a very strong IAR argument as to why we should expect GNG coverage to exist despite NFOOTY being deprecated precisely because it was a poor predictor of GNG. Otherwise keeps should be disregarded per ROUGHCONSENSUS. JoelleJay (talk) 05:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear: no one has specifically identified the multiple sources they claim make the subject pass GNG (and in fact most of the keep !votes are pure arguments to avoid). Since GNG/SPORTBASIC rejects stats reports, passing mentions, routine coverage, and everything primary or non-independent, we must assume they are referring to sources other than those in the article currently. So what are they? JoelleJay (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I previously did a WP:NAC on this as keep. JoelleJay left a message on my talk page asking me to relist, and while I don't see how this could have been closed any other way, given this is a NAC that has been questioned, I'm going to leave this to an admin to close and revert my close. I am not relisting this despite JoelleJay's request to do so, though an admin can at their discretion. As it had already been open seven days when I closed it, I would be OK with an admin closing it at any time, but it's their call to make, not mine. Smartyllama (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See User talk:Smartyllama#Perez AfD for JoelleJay's message and my response. Smartyllama (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Jogurney and think we should IAR in this case. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If this was written by a brand-new editor, it would not pass AfC. Current sources [22][23][24][25][26] merely mention his name and do not provide significant coverage by any stretch. This means that the article fails NSPORTS (which explicitly requires SIGCOV sourcing to be included in the article) as well as GNG. If anyone finds better sourcing or can explain how these sources meet GNG, please ping me and I'll reconsider. Not opposed to Draftify if someone is interested in bringing it up to our standards. –dlthewave ☎ 02:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would like to see some discussion in response to dlthewave's source analysis. I would remind participants that the community was clear that caps alone do not confer notability. You can not LOCALCONSENSUS around this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anyone saying to keep based on caps. The keep voters are saying to keep per GNG or IAR. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:28, 15 August 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Vyfhuis

Jade Vyfhuis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. All mentions are of a trivial nature. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WCMemail 07:42, 1 August 2022 (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 keep. There was consensus that the subject passes GNG. (non-admin closure) Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Mungar

Barry Mungar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For the last fourteen years this BLP stub has been sourced only to an unselective database. Deprodded. —S Marshall T/C 15:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 15:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears to pass GNG, see the following: Milton, Steve (January 8, 2005). "Mungar takes his place in Bonnies Hall of Fame". The Hamilton Spectator. p. SP09. (available at [27]); "Former Bonnie Mungar reflects on life in basketball". Olean Times Herald. June 25, 2019.; Butler, J. P. (May 7, 2020). "Former Bona star Mungar played with 'Worm' at Portsmouth camp". The Bradford Era.; Milton, Steve (July 10, 2015). "Shocked by Ben, and by Brazil". The Spectator.; "World-class athlete, cop speaks at Routes gala". Hamilton News. February 11, 2014.; and "Bona more capable of controlling boards with controlled Mungar". Democrat and Chronicle. December 26, 1983. p. 37 – via Newspapers.com.. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, taking those sources in order:-
  1. The Olean Times Herald gives error 451: site access denied because the provider doesn't want to comply with the GDPR. This is common with US local news sources. That together with the title and name of the provider suggests that it's likely WP:MILL coverage in a local news source.
  2. The Bradford Era gives the same error and indeed refers me to exactly the same person's email address if I want to complain, so I seriously doubt if it's meaningfully different from source #1.
  3. The Hamilton Spectator, which is not the tremendously reputable source called The Spectator but some similarly-named local news source from the US, does display for me. It's WP:MILL coverage in which Mr Mungar reminisces about his sports and policing career. In the fourth paragraph from the bottom, it seems to admit that Mr Mungar never played professionally.
  4. The Hamilton News, is WP:MILL coverage in a local newspaper about a speech that Mr Mungar made at a gala in 2014.
  5. The Democrat and Chronicle, a US local newspaper, is from 26 December 1983. It describes Mr Mungar's height (apparently he's 6ft 8in) and his basketball play style; apparently his play has much improved. I see from the box at the bottom right that he was number 25 and was the highest scorer for his amateur team. No mention of ever winning anything.
To be quite frank, I'm not greatly impressed with any of that. Mr Mungar is doubtless a good sportsman and devoted servant to his community, but I've received more local newspaper coverage than he has, and I'm not notable at all.—S Marshall T/C 17:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First off, WP:MILL is an essay and has no effect whatsoever on whether coverage is significant. The first source ("Mungar takes his place in Bonnies Hall of Fame") has 651 words on him, so definitely SIGCOV ("addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content"). The Olean article is over 1,400 words on his basketball career, so that's SIGCOV piece number two (already we have enough for GNG! Which only requires "multiple"). The Bradford Era article is over 1,000 words on him and how he was teammates with Dennis Rodman, so SIGCOV piece number three. The Spectator one is over 600 words on Mungar, so SIGCOV #4. Hamilton News is over 500 words, that means SIGCOV piece number five. And then finally there's the Democrat and Chronicle one, which is a few paragraphs on him, so probably SIGCOV. So we've got at least five pieces of significant coverage here, and GNG only requires two! BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2022 (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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amitabh Vijayvargiya

AfDs for this article:
Amitabh Vijayvargiya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage to meet NSPORTS or GNG. The previous AfD was closed as Keep based on the likely existence of SIGCOV sources; no sources have been found to exist or been added to the articles, and no objective evidence of their existence has been provided as required by WP:NRV. NSPORTS no longer allows presumption of notability and SPORTBASIC explicitly requires at least one SIGCOV source to be present in the article. The only non-database source is routine coverage of a single event and does not provide a level of depth that could be used to meet SIGCOV or build out a viable article. –dlthewave ☎ 15:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The SNG which you linked says "Additionally, cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof." This article fails the proof of SIGCOG requirement as well as WP:SPORTBASIC #5. –dlthewave ☎ 19:35, 31 July 2022 (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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subodh Saxena

AfDs for this article:
Subodh Saxena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage to meet NSPORTS or GNG. The previous AfD was closed as Keep based on the likely existence of SIGCOV sources; no sources have been found to exist or been added to the articles. NSPORTS no longer allows presumption of notability and SPORTBASIC explicitly requires at least one SIGCOV source to be present in the article. The single non-database source is a mere passing mention and does not meet the SIGCOV requirement. –dlthewave ☎ 15:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5. Sources don't need to be present in the article but they do need to exist; I note that this is the second time this article has been nominated for deletion, and in the year since the previous discussion no one has been able to find suitable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misrepresentation of NCRIC from an editor who is now banned for their AfD conduct. That section actually says "Additionally, cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof" (emphasis mine). –dlthewave ☎
  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCRICKET. While it's true that WP:NCRICKET mentions playing at the highest level, it says nothing about that making a subject notable, or that playing at the highest level meets some requirement. What it says is "cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof." So even the guideline being cited to support keeping the article doesn't actually support keeping the article. Since there is no further proof of sufficient coverage, then per WP:NCRICKET we must assume there is no notability. This article doesn't even have the presumption of notability, let alone established, demonstrated notability that articles on Wikipedia must have. WP:NEXIST does say that sources don't need to be in the article, but the sources do need to exist. There's been more than sufficient opportunity to present evidence of such sources, and none have materialized. For my part I have searched and came up empty. I also looked at the three other similar nominations for deletion before making this comment. Given that they are functionally identical my comment for all four will be the same (which seems to be the theme here with all the comments). - Aoidh (talk) 04:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I'd like to think that GNG passing sourcing does exist on the subject, likely in offline or non-English language media, but none has been forthcoming since the last AfD around a year ago, hence my weak delete. I would suggest a redirect, but given he played for a number of sides there isn't a suitable one here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2022 (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 redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers. if more sources are found to show SIGCOV, may qualify for his own article. Based on current consensus will redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers (non-admin closure) KSAWikipedian (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mukesh Sahni

AfDs for this article:
Mukesh Sahni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage to meet NSPORTS or GNG. The previous AfD was closed as Keep based on the likely existence of SIGCOV sources; no sources have been found to exist or been added to the articles. NSPORTS no longer allows presumption of notability and SPORTBASIC explicitly requires at least one SIGCOV source to be present in the article. Although one source was provided at the previous AfD, it does not meet SIGCOV for Sahni as it is an interview with him about a game, not independent coverage of the man himself. –dlthewave ☎ 15:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The SNG which you linked says "Additionally, cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof." This article fails the proof of SIGCOG requirement as well as WP:SPORTBASIC #5. –dlthewave ☎ 19:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep A GNG passing source was found in the previous AfD, and I believe it likely that there is more GNG passing coverage in offline and non-English language media, although none has been forthcoming since the previous AfD. At worst there's a redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers as suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. The one source that has more than a passing mention of him only has ~5 sentences actually on him, most of them in the context of his son:

    Mukesh Sahni, father of Parth Sahni of Ujjain, included in state Ranji team was welcomed.
    His father Mukesh Sahni has played Ranji for Madhya Pradesh.
    Mukesh Sahni, resident of Dabripeetha was felicitated by members of Nagar Brahmin Samaj on the Kshipra coast.
    Mukesh Sahni has been an excellent cricketer and he has played 12 Ranji matches for Madhya Pradesh. His son Parth took two wickets for MP while debuting in the final and after 88 years made a significant contribution in defeating a strong side like Mumbai.

    There is a distinction between "trivial", "non-trivial", and "significant" coverage, with this falling squarely in the middle category. JoelleJay (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there? I've never heard that before, and it doesn't seem to fit with WP:SIGCOV: " Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." StAnselm (talk) 14:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BASIC makes such a distinction. JoelleJay (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BASIC you mean? As far as I can tell from reading it several times no distinction is made between trivial, non-trivial and significant coverage. A distinction is made between trivial and non-trivial, because under BASIC non-trivial sources may contribute to passing notability if several are combined. But given that it refers to a 200 page book as being non-trivial I don't think it makes a distinction between non-trivial and significant coverage really. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability This suggests there may be non-trivial sources that are nevertheless not substantial enough to provide the in-depth coverage needed for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, looks like a choice between Keep and Redirect right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This won't necessarily help much, as I'm in the same camp as RF22 again here: this is either a weakish keep, based on the entirely reasonable assumption that there will be way more offline sources available, many of them not written in English, or I would be relaxed about a redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers with a note being added to the entry there. From the pov of attempting to deal with systematic bias I'd probably tend slightly more towards keep than redirect I suppose. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the requirement for a source of SIGCOV? I think the 5-sentence blurb above in the context of his son would really be stretching it. JoelleJay (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm cool with the assumption BASIC would, if we could access the offline sources that almost certainly exist, allow us to pull sources together to have enough to demonstrate notability. I'm also, as I say, perfectly happy with a redirect, but a general feeling that there seem to be, for some reason, an awful lot of Indian subcontinent AfDs regarding cricketers makes me worry about the trend towards increasing whiteness in our coverage, so I'd be happy with a bold keep as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a big "could"; the assumption that SIGCCOV sources exist for players who participated at a certain level has been rejected by the community. Perhaps draftification would be a good alternative to give folks an opportunity to build an article that demonstrates notability. –dlthewave ☎ 02:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit skeptical of the "rejected by the community" language. In particular, with FC cricketers, the long-recognised concern was with those who had played a handful of matches - I'm not sure the assumption that SIGCCOV sources exist for players who have played 44 matches has been rejected by the community. StAnselm (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Drafting would be a terrible idea - we all know that this is just delete the page in six months time. Redirection, as indicated by several editors, would be much more in line with consensus on cricket articles going back to at least 2018, preserves the page history and attribution and is more efficient. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So how about the cricket project maintain a list of draftified pages to work on, and someone can make a single edit every six months to prevent G13. If no one has any interest in actually bringing the subject up to the bare minimum standards in the near future, I don't see why it should remain in mainspace on the (rejected) presumption that SIGCOV exists. JoelleJay (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have added the two ESPN articles - not sure why they weren't in before. And I think they constitute significant coverage - they are both analyses of how he was coaching. StAnselm (talk) 02:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How odd that they weren't added. They would help me trend towards a keep per my comment above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, they don't come up as "news". I suspect we all rely far too much on Google in our searches. StAnselm (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those has independent SIGCOV of Sahni, since the only content "on" him is just his own quotes. JoelleJay (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers. Notability just isn't there, even with the trivial mentions in the ESPN sources provided. As usual WP:NEXIST is mentioned as a keep rationale, and while yes, sources do not need to be present in the article, they do need to be shown as existing. We can't just handwave away the lack of sources, otherwise every single article at AfD would be kept via WP:NEXIST; if we're going to cite WP:NEXIST, we have to show that they actually exist in order for that to be a compelling argument. WP:NSPORT mentioned above only discusses the likelihood of sources existing, it says nothing about being notable through playing at certain levels and makes it clear that significant coverage is still needed, which this article does not have. - Aoidh (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 11:45, 15 August 2022 (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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjeeva Rao

AfDs for this article:
Sanjeeva Rao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage to meet NSPORTS or GNG. The previous AfD was closed as Keep based on the likely existence of SIGCOV sources; no sources have been found to exist or been added to the articles. NSPORTS no longer allows presumption of notability and SPORTBASIC explicitly requires at least one SIGCOV source to be present in the article. –dlthewave ☎ 15:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCRICKET. While it's true that WP:NCRICKET mentions playing at the highest level, it says nothing about that making a subject notable, or that playing at the highest level meets some requirement. What it says is "cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof." So even the guideline being cited to support keeping the article doesn't actually support keeping the article. Since there is no further proof of sufficient coverage, then per WP:NCRICKET we must assume there is no notability. This article doesn't even have the presumption of notability, let alone established, demonstrated notability that articles on Wikipedia must have. WP:NEXIST does say that sources don't need to be in the article, but the sources do need to exist. There's been more than sufficient opportunity to present evidence of such sources, and none have materialized. For my part I have searched and came up empty. - Aoidh (talk) 04:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete It's my opinion that GNG passing sources likely exists on the subject, in either offline or non-English language media, but in the year since the last AfD none has been forthcoming, therefore I'm at weak delete as there's no suitable redirect here as he played for a number of different sides. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it seems nobody is really looking hard for sources here. There's an article here[28] that describes a match and comments of his career that, if it isn't sigcov, it comes close. There are a number of articles about his being an official[29] and I found a couple of database articles that referenced him as a club or regional official, he's also mentioned in the book Cricket wallah : with England in India, 1981-2 in a piece which has been excerpted in The Picador book of cricket and Bat, ball & boundary : a cricketer's companion. These are admittedly passing mentions, but it seems to me useful that sportsmen who get mentioned in anthologies of sportswriting and have significant careers be described in encyclopedia articles. There's some more coverage here[30] and he gets a mention in this book of cricket records[31]. With him showing up in these kinds of sources, I'm confident that if we actually had access to a good database of Indian newspapers for the relevant period of his playing career, he'd show up there too.--Jahaza (talk) 09:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No I think those were likely seen but overlooked, because they are the very definition of trivial coverage and don't contribute to notability per WP:GNG. If that's the best we can find, it kind of supports the fact that there's nothing there in terms of coverage. While it's possible sources exist, per WP:NCRICKET we should not assume sources exist at this level. - Aoidh (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Trivial, passing mentions and appearances in lists do not contribute to GNG and certainly do not indicate further sources might exist. Primary play-by-play recaps of matches are routine in cricket and do not count towards GNG either. The article does not have a single SIGCOV source, and so fails SPORTCRIT and should be deleted. JoelleJay (talk) 05:55, 3 August 2022 (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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tihomir Živković

Tihomir Živković (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was a BLP PROD at one point but subsequently contested. Can't find anything to suggest he passes WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. I found a few hits in Google News but all are trivial mentions in match reports or photo captions. A Tips article has his name in the title but the body of the article only mentions him briefly, confirms his nationality, says he scored three goals in two games and contains a one-sentence quote from his coach. Even if this is 'significant coverage', we would still need at least one more independent source. A Croatian source search yielded nothing useful. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:51, 31 July 2022 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sairusi Nalaubu

Sairusi Nalaubu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is the first time I have used the XfD function so please let me know if I am making any mistakes. I have followed the instructions on the AFD page and in Twinkle.

The multiple issues banner was placed on the article over three months ago but no action has been taken to resolve the issues and so I must ask if the article should be removed.

The subject does not seem to meet the conditions set out on the WP:NSPORT page. Of the four sources cited, one is unobtainable, two are bare statistics only and the other is a short newspaper report which, to my mind, is what WP:SPORTBASIC classifies as "routine game coverage". I do not think any of the sources provide significant coverage as required by WP:NOTABILITY. I have done a Google search but I cannot see anything more than statistics, really, and I think some of the sites may not be reliable.

If there are other policies or guidelines I should be aware of, could someone please point them out? Thank you.

Sistorian (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Spiderone. That is a relief! The instructions are very good, though, and the process is well explained. Sistorian (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - These sources shoe he is notable in Fiji: [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], and [39], among many many other sources from Oceania Football, Oceania Football Center, Fiji Live, Fiji Sun, Fiji Times, Fiji Football, FBC News, and Fiji Village. In addition, he is a significant player in the Fijian league with an ongoing international capped career. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 20. By the time I finish writing this, another twenty will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Interview, his wife is being interviewed about her husband, the story is by "FIJI FA MEDIA" and probably isn't independent of him, interview, 5+6 are from the Fiji FA, interview and finally an opinion piece. Dougal18 (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I only put those sources on here because people told me that putting too much is bad for some reason, but if you search him up with the terms Oceania Football, Oceania Football Center, Fiji Live, Fiji Sun, Fiji Times, Fiji Football, FBC News, and Fiji Village, you will find many sources about him that are not listed here. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2022 (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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sachin Dholpure

AfDs for this article:
Sachin Dholpure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails NSPORT and GNG. The single non-database source is a narrative of a single game which doesn't discuss the subject in sufficient depth to meet SIGCOV. –dlthewave ☎ 13:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We can disagree on whether or not NEXIST overrides the SPORTBASIC requirement, but I think it's clear that both guidelines require the proven existence of sources. Can you name one SIGCOV source? –dlthewave ☎ 15:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5. Sources don't need to be present in the article but they do need to exist; I note that this is the second time this article has been nominated for deletion, and in the year since the previous one no one has been able to find suitable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The SNG which you linked says "Additionally, cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof." This article fails the proof of SIGCOG requirement as well as WP:SPORTBASIC #5. –dlthewave ☎ 19:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCRICKET. While it's true that WP:NCRICKET mentions playing at the highest level, it says nothing about that making a subject notable, or that playing at the highest level meets some requirement. What it says is "cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof." So even the guideline being cited to support keeping the article doesn't actually support keeping the article. Since there is no further proof of sufficient coverage, then per WP:NCRICKET we must assume there is no notability. This article doesn't even have the presumption of notability, let alone established, demonstrated notability that articles on Wikipedia must have. WP:NEXIST does say that sources don't need to be in the article, but the sources do need to exist. There's been more than sufficient opportunity to present evidence of such sources, and none have materialized. For my part I have searched and came up empty. I also looked at the three other similar nominations for deletion before making this comment. Given that they are functionally identical my comment for all four will be the same (which seems to be the theme here with all the comments). - Aoidh (talk) 04:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep While NCRIC and NSPORTS have been updated since the previous AfD, there was a GNG passing source provided at the time of the previous AfD. It is likely that some coverage may well exist in offline non-English language media, although none has been found in the last year. I'm at weak keep because of this, but at worst there's a redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers as a valid WP:ATD if required. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did see the source but it's just a brief and routine mention in an article about a Cricket match, not significant coverage of Dholpure himself. –dlthewave ☎ 03:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NCRICKET, it's actually not likely that there's coverage, and a reference with a trivial mention does not meet WP:GNG in any way (even ignoring the fact that articles require multiple reliable sources with significant coverage). WP:GNG isn't even approaching the level of being met here. - Aoidh (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The single non-stats source on him is strictly a routine, primary match recap, not SIGCOV. It describes how he and other players performed at one non-notable match, in a non-notable tournament, the exact same way every other such match is summarized. JoelleJay (talk) 08:00, 2 August 2022 (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. There is consensus to delete: guidelines are now clear that sportspeople need sources rather than only match participation for an article. One "keep" does not address this and the other is by a now-banned editor, which I discount.

There's no consensus for a redirect (which would seem like a sensible ATD to me). Whether to create a redirect after deletion is therefore up to editors. Sandstein 12:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dinkar Deshpande

AfDs for this article:
Dinkar Deshpande (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is sourced only to a single database, and no significant coverage has been found even after going through AfD a year ago. Fails SPORTBASIC which requires at least one SIGCOV source to be cited in the article. –dlthewave ☎ 12:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCRICKET. While it's true that WP:NCRICKET mentions playing at the highest level, it says nothing about that making a subject notable, or that playing at the highest level meets some requirement. What it says is "cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof." So even the guideline being cited to support keeping the article doesn't actually support keeping the article. Since there is no further proof of sufficient coverage, then per WP:NCRICKET we must assume there is no notability. This article doesn't even have the presumption of notability, let alone established, demonstrated notability that articles on Wikipedia must have. WP:NEXIST does say that sources don't need to be in the article, but the sources do need to exist. There's been more than sufficient opportunity to present evidence of such sources, and none have materialized. For my part I have searched and came up empty. I also looked at the three other similar nominations for deletion before making this comment. Given that they are functionally identical my comment for all four will be the same (which seems to be the theme here with all the comments). - Aoidh (talk) 04:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete While I believe that it is likely that sourcing that passes GNG probably exists on this player, none has been forthcoming in the year since the previous AfD, with the change in guidelines both the NCRIC and NSPORTS also. I'd suggest redirect, but there's not really a suitable one here given he played for a number of teams. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Aoidh. No SIGCOV sources (or even just one source) have been found in the last year, and there is nothing to suggest they exist. JoelleJay (talk) 07:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers. Per community consensus, a GNG-passing source must exist for sportspersons to be considered notable. I see no evidence that this is met and per WP:CONLEVEL consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. Since the individual fails WP:GNG, there is no policy-based reason for keeping the article. The individual's name appears on the list that is my proposed redirect target (and the list's selection criteria would include him) and ESPN CricInfo is reliable enough to establish his existence IMO, so I see a redirect as proper here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if sources exist, the article will be recreated separately from a database listing. —VersaceSpace 🌃 01:56, 8 August 2022 (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 keep. ✗plicit 13:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hans-Martin Trepp

Hans-Martin Trepp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I prodded this article on the basis that it was sourced only to a database. Creator deprodded and added another source... which was another database. My interpretation of WP:NOTDIR is that Wikipedia is not a comprehensive directory of Olympians. I feel that articles should have secondary sources, not just databases. —S Marshall T/C 09:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 09:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 09:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, my interpretation of the criteria is that something should not have an article solely because the topic is in some kind of a directory. The athlete in question is a winner of an Olympic medal and has other notable achievements. Obviously, most sources would likely be on paper but since the two websites are reliable sources, that should not pose a problem. --Tone 09:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep According to WP:NHOCKEY, being on a world championship team is enough to meet notability requirements. He played for the Swiss national team at the world championship 4 times, won a gold medal at the European championship according to this site. He is also mentioned in the book Lion in Winter: A Complete Record of Great Britain at the Olympic, World and European Ice Hockey Championships 1910 - 1981 by David S Gordon and Martin C Harris on pages 290-291. That book, as well as his career statistics, which appear to have been above average if not exceptional, could be used to expand the article. Chagropango (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Chagropango. Reading his bio suggests quite a lengthy and notable hockey career, even if you discount his Olympic appearence. Multiple national titles, European medals, matches and goals. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above. Additionally, Trepp was named the greatest centre in Swiss history. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, four "keep" !votes and we've got two new sources: Olympedia, yet another nonselective sports database, and pp290-291 of ISBN 9781527247475 --- an ebook published by Lulu.com (i.e. self-published: they're on WP:SPSLIST).—S Marshall T/C 17:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Still, the question is not whether the databases are selective or notselective, the question is whether they are reliable sources. As demonstrated, the subject meets the notability standards and therefore just needs reliable sources. Tone 21:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry to disagree with you again, Tone, but when you say "this subject meets the notability standards", I don't think that's actually the case. The notability standard requires reliable sources, plural, and I think this content only has one. To a superficial glance it might look like three, but let's actually drill down and look at them:
  1. Olympedia.com: "Hans-Martin Trepp was a forward who played for EHC Arosa from 1946-59, winning seven consecutive Swiss titles with that side from 1951-57. He played for Switzerland at the World Championships four times, winning three bronze medals in 1950-51 and 1953. He also added six medals at the European Championships, winning gold in 1950, silver in 1951, and bronzes in 1947, 1949, and 1952-53. Statistics are not complete but Trepp was a prolific scorer for Arosa, with 128 goals and 161 points in the last four years of his career in only 49 games. He scored 43 goals in his 39 games at the Olympics and Worlds."
  2. Sports-reference.com: "Hans-Martin Trepp was a forward who played for EHC Arosa from 1946-59, winning seven consecutive Swiss titles with that side from 1951-57. He played for Switzerland at the World Championships four times, winning three bronze medals in 1950-51 and 1953. He also added six medals at the European Championships, winning gold in 1950, silver in 1951, and bronzes in 1947, 1949, and 1952-53. Statistics are not complete but Trepp was a prolific scorer for Arosa, with 128 goals and 161 points in the last four years of his career in only 49 games. He scored 43 goals in his 39 games at the Olympics and Worlds."
  3. Olympics.com: "Hans-Martin Trepp was a forward who played for EHC Arosa from 1946-59, winning seven consecutive Swiss titles with that side from 1951-57. He played for Switzerland at the World Championships four times, winning three bronze medals in 1950-51 and 1953. He also added six medals at the European Championships, winning gold in 1950, silver in 1951, and bronzes in 1947, 1949, and 1952-53. Statistics are not complete but Trepp was a prolific scorer for Arosa, with 128 goals and 161 points in the last four years of his career in only 49 games. He scored 43 goals in his 39 games at the Olympics and Worlds."
All three sites claim copyright, but looking at their copyright pages I think their data is actually compiled by the OlyMADmen, who are the people whose names are listed here. In other words, I'm afraid we aren't looking at three separate sources. We're looking at three copies of one source.—S Marshall T/C 21:58, 31 July 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Briya Philip

Briya Philip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WCMemail 07:43, 1 August 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Briyanna Philip

Briyanna Philip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WCMemail 07:43, 1 August 2022 (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 keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Czeschin

Tommy Czeschin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable athlete and reality television contestant. It's my understanding that simply competing at the Olympics is insufficient to establish notability. This athlete did not medal in his event. Bgsu98 (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2022 (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 13:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Hossein Sharifzadeh

Mohammad Hossein Sharifzadeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable sport shooters, this user keep creating articles about non-notable Iranian sport shooters. one of them got deleted before Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amir Mohammad Nekounam, none of them participated at the Olympics and didn't win a medal at Senior World Championships, (some of them have junior medals which is not noteworthy) Sports2021 (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Ebrahim Inanloo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mohsen Nasresfahani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dorsa Arabshahi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Amir Siavash Zolfagharian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hossein Bagheri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mohammad Zaer Rezaei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Elham Harijani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mohammad Rasool Efati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fatemeh Amini (sport shooter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sajjad Pourhosseini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vahid Golkhandan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a long list, different athletes with different achievements, in case some users want to vote differently I made a list of their achievements to make it easier.

Sport Shooter World Cup World Junior Champ. Asian Senior Champ. Universiade Note
Mohammad Hossein Sharifzadeh - Yes - -
Ebrahim Inanloo - - - - some achievements as coach
Mohsen Nasresfahani - - - - some achievements as coach
Dorsa Arabshahi - - - Yes
Amir Siavash Zolfagharian - Yes - -
Hossein Bagheri Yes - Yes - Currently coaching the NT
Mohammad Zaer Rezaei - - Yes -
Elham Harijani Yes - Yes -
Mohammad Rasool Efati Yes - - -
Fatemeh Amini Yes - - -
Sajjad Pourhosseini Yes - - Yes
Vahid Golkhandan Yes - - -

and keep in mind, most of these medals are in team events which is less notable specially in a World Cup. Sports2021 (talk)

Keep.Don't get me wrong, he won a medal in the World Championship, which is more prestigious than the World Cup A2004bb (talk) 05:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that winning World Cup medals is not unimportant, either individually or as a team, it is a great honor that should not be ignored.A2004bb (talk) 05:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that you just want to underestimate the field of shooting, otherwise the sources on the mentioned pages confirm the information on the pages. Why is there really an intention to remove these pages from Wikipedia? I don't know, maybe you are not familiar with the field of shooting and consider its medals unimportant; I request all of you to reconsider and do not delete any of them or make the desired edits in the pages with your own opinion in order to improve them, but deleting them is not fair for these pages in any way, thank youA2004bb (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep those who participated in the World Cup, all of whom were medalists. StAnselm (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just for info, World Cup is a secondary tournament in this sport. World Cups are important only when they are Olympic qualifiers, (without Olympic spot to grab, it's just a preparation tournament) some of them won medals in low level team events where only 4 teams participated, like here You might have a point about individual World Cup medalists though. only two of them Golkhandan and Bagheri won individaul medals. Sports2021 (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep Regarding Ebrahim Inanloo, please refer to his page and read the tips about it in order to understand the reasons for his stay. He was able to achieve the first Olympic quota in shooting in Indonesia with his coaching and other issues written on his page. and they also have a source.A2004bb (talk) 05:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Amir Siavash Zolfagharian participated in the Youth Olympics and the Asian Games and is the owner of the silver medal of the World Championship and the gold of the World Youth Cup. Does a person with such honors really deserve to have his page removed from Wikipedia?A2004bb (talk) 05:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Vahid Golkhandan, Efti, Amini, Bagheri, Harijani, Pourhosseini have World Cup medals and sometimes other international medals as well, and it is not acceptable to remove them from Wikipedia.A2004bb (talk) 05:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The people who have World Cup medals should be kept and Siavash Zolfagharian, who has a world medal and experience in the Youth Olympics, Mohsen Nasr Esfahani was a coach in the Olympics, and Inanloo was also a coach in the 2016 Olympics.Marouf.ashena (talk) 12:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks like you don't learn about not creating sock accounts, I warned you before and now I'm going to report you for sockpuppetry. Sports2021 (talk)

Delete. Do any of these people have a source of SIGCOV cited in the article? Because that is required to presume SIGCOV exists from meeting an NSPORT subguideline. It looks like most of them are referenced solely to sports databases like lssf-sports.org and the-sports.org, with a couple having additional sources ranging from trivial passing mentions in routine announcements/transactional news/press releases to inaccessible media to purely quotes from the subject. At least one of the articles appears to misgender the subject, too. As it stands none of these subjects meet SPORTCRIT, so the only way to save these articles is for editors to dig into Persian sources to demonstrate SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 05:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A lot of sockpuppetry going on here but I'm going to relist for another week since it involves the suggested deletion of 12 different articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would still like to hear from more than 2 non-sockpuppet editors before deleting 12 articles in this bundled nomination. Opinions?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:56, 13 August 2022 (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Doda

Albert Doda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2014. A brief look at the edit history shows that someone claiming to be Albert Doda has, on multiple occasions, tried to get the article deleted. See also User talk:Temrk. The article is currently a stats stub and searches in Google Images, Google News and ProQuest yielded nothing useful at all. DDG had some Albanian news stories but none of them appear to be about this particular Albert Doda. The article should be deleted per WP:GNG, WP:SPORTBASIC and per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Soccerway only shows him playing in one game, which, even prior to the changes in WP:NSPORT recently, wouldn't have been good enough for a stand-alone article per WP:WINNEROUTCOMES. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:06, 30 July 2022 (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.
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/<topic>|list of <topic>-related deletion discussions]]. <signature>
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. however, @Rugbyfan22:. please let me know if you'd like to continue working on this since you found some sourcing that could indicate GNG.Happy to provide in Draft Star Mississippi 14:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Azur Allison

Azur Allison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable rugby union player, who has not made it to professional level. Article creation was premature. He was in the Ulster Rugby youth academy for several seasons, made one senior appearance, and is no longer part of the academy. Nicknack009 (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:30, 13 August 2022 (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. Tone 14:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

West Cenaj

West Cenaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any significant coverage and, since WP:NFOOTBALL is deprecated (bear in mind he only played 49 mins in the second tier of Albania so it's one of the weakest passes possible), WP:GNG is required and so a Soccerway stats stub is no longer acceptable unless significant coverage can be located. I searched using multiple search engines but couldn't find anything better than a passing mention in a crime news story in My London. The age of "Uesti Cenaj" matches the details for this footballer so it's likely that they are the same person but the level of coverage is insufficient for GNG and he doesn't meet the criteria at WP:PERPETRATOR. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:51, 30 July 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulaziz Al-Faraj

Abdulaziz Al-Faraj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed PROD. WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:SPORTBASIC. Of the six references, four are football database entries. Of the remaining two references, one mentions him in one sentence of an article to say he has been signed to a team. The other one is about the team, and lists all the players of the team in one of paragraphs. Singularity42 (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 5 August 2022 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Femke (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guillaume Hoorickx

Guillaume Hoorickx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails NSPORT/GNG due to lack of significant coverage. WP:SPORTBASIC requires at least one SIGCOV source to be present in the article. –dlthewave ☎ 19:17, 29 July 2022 (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 redirect to Field hockey at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads#Japan. ✗plicit 00:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Toshio Ohtsu

Toshio Ohtsu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails NSPORT/GNG due to lack of significant coverage. WP:SPORTBASIC requires at least one SIGCOV source to be present in the article. –dlthewave ☎ 19:16, 29 July 2022 (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 redirect to List of Uttarakhand cricketers. North America1000 03:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit Manori

Ankit Manori (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails NSPORT/GNG due to lack of significant coverage. WP:SPORTBASIC requires at least one SIGCOV source to be present in the article. –dlthewave ☎ 19:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand how AfD works. Anyone is allowed to appeal to a notability essay. That's always been the case. See also: WP:ONLYESSAY. StAnselm (talk) 02:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
However, the criteria you are (presumably) relying on here were rejected by the community in a well attended RFC (WP:NSPORTS2022), hence their removal from the actual guideline just a few months ago. You are simply highlighting that the cricket project essay has yet to be updated in line with community consensus. Also, please refer to WP:ATA with regards to making vague wave/just notable !votes. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect to List of Uttarakhand cricketers I'm not seeing enough for a GNG pass here, despite the confusion over the spelling of his name, with CA suggesting Ankit Manor and Cricinfo suggesting Ankit Manori, however with both and previous on Indian cricketers who've played a few games, not really seeing enough. I would suggest redirect per WP:ATD, but the list page would need to be created, but perhaps that can be done before the AfD process is complete. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The list is quite short in this case (51 players per CA). Usually I'd do it, but I'll be away from the machine I can easily access CA on for a week, so it couldn't happen before 8 August at the earliest. This is, though, the best alternative in this case and the list could be created as an incomplete list - this has happened before and can work as a placeholder until someone with CA access can get to the list. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The list is done now. It saved me listening to two family members arguing again... Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2022 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Piet Mollin

Piet Mollin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails NSPORTS and GNG due to lack of significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 19:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No one has identified any SIGCOV in independent RS (a requirement for any NSPORT-based presumptions of meeting GNG to be remotely valid), and my own google search returned just 3 pages of hits, most of them wiki mirrors. If a website dedicated to researching Olympians can't even determine when this guy died, there's very little reason to expect significant coverage exists. JoelleJay (talk) 05:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The coverage offered by the sources in the article amounts to "Pierre Mollin had the following finishes at major championships", and virtually nothing comes up in a regular search. The topic therefore fails WP:BASIC. Avilich (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete owing to a lack of significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. I also searched under the other names listed in Olympedia but found nothing. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS through the lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Since there's no wrestling-specific guideline (that I'm aware of) WP:SPORTCRIT applies, which is bascially the same as WP:GNG in terms of what it's looking for, and championship wins are not a part of that criteria and do not confer notability based on any guideline that I am aware of. The championship wins would suggest the presence of reliable sources, but in this case that doesn't appear to pan out. - Aoidh (talk) 06:07, 14 August 2022 (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 keep. ✗plicit 00:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ornella Sathoud

Ornella Sathoud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsfan 1234, I am not sure you did a thorough search about the subject before nominating the article for deletion. The article is still being improved, however a thorough search would have helped in avoiding this.
[48], [49],[50], [51], [52], [53], [54],[55],[56]
Go through the sources provided. Thank you. Ampimd (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2022 (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 keep. Tone 09:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shariz Ahmad

Shariz Ahmad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails NSPORT/GNG due to lack of significant coverage. WP:SPORTBASIC requires at least one SIGCOV source to be present in the article. –dlthewave ☎ 16:07, 29 July 2022 (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 redirect to List of United States ODI cricketers. I have to discount the "keep" opinions because they mostly do not address what community consensus has established every biography needs: substantial coverage in reliable sources. And those that do cite sources do not (or unconvincingly) address the concerns raised about these sources that they are not substantial coverage. I'm also discounting the input by Lugnuts because they have since been banned. Sandstein 19:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saiteja Mukkamalla

Saiteja Mukkamalla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails NSPORT/GNG due to lack of significant coverage. WP:SPORTBASIC requires at least one SIGCOV source to be present in the article. –dlthewave ☎ 16:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. He has played at least one senior ODI, the highest form of one-day cricket, which satisfies WP:CRIC Bs1jac (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NCRIC (WP:CRIC is the wikiproject) states that significant coverage is likely to exist for international cricketers in Test playing nations. That is not the case here, so WP:GNG must be met, and none of the current sources in the article contribute to demonstrating that. wjematherplease leave a message... 17:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of mentions in press reports. Once they start to call him things like "teenage prodigy" it makes me wonder if there might be enough here to suggest that keeping the article wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. There's evidence through those that he is also referred to Sai Mukkamalla, Sai Teja Mukkamalla and Sai Reddy Mukkamalla. We've had this issue with transliterations several times recently which is all a bit unfortunate. In particular, using Sai Teja adds a number of other mentions to those we already get. Hmmm... Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you could share 3-4 of the SIGCOV sources you've found, you'd have a good argument for keeping the article. –dlthewave ☎ 19:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep?. As BST said there should be enough SIGCOV if the player actually played ODI unlike T20Is as not ICC member gets to play them. However I've noticed this discrepancy between what's written in WP:NCRIC and WP:CRIN. Help in improving articles are expected instead of just blatantly deleting everything. Human (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Redirect to List of United States ODI cricketers There's clearly coverage on this player, he gets absolute heaps of mentions in a simple google search, which would normally suggest that there is likely something out there that would pass him for GNG, however in this albeit simple search I've not really found anything other than these passing mentions (although absolutely loads of them). I'd like to think with these amounts of mentions there is enough for a GNG pass, hence me suggesting keep, although I wouldn't mind a redirect here per WP:ATD until a bit more turns up, which I believe it will. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a little bit more than just passing mentions, but we'd need to build a more significant set of those to meet WP:BASIC. I doubt I'll be able to find time over the next week to do the sorts of work that would be necessary to do this, so there's nothing wrong with the non-destructive remedy of using a redirect for now. I suspect there's more to come on the chap, fwiw. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing that has been presented meets the requirements of GNG/BASIC/SPORTCRIT; specifically, primary sources "do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject", and (other than the usual databases) routine passing mentions in primary sports reporting is pretty much all that has been shown to exist. In these cases, lists serve our readers better than producing unbalanced stub articles synthesised from such sources. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per BST and Lugnuts. Another poorly thought out AfD on an international cricketer. StickyWicket (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per accurate reasoning by Keep voters. —Natalie RicciNatalie 09:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of United States ODI cricketers. The keep arguments allude to sources but other than one borderline source above, nothing has been found. "There should be sources" is not and has never been an argument for notability and WP:NCRIC only says "Significant coverage is likely to exist" it does not say that playing at a certain level creates notability. NCRIC only says there may be sources at a certain level; it is neither a guarantee that sources will exist, nor does playing at any given level create even an assumption of notability. Sources are still required and notability must be demonstrated; we can't allude to hypothetical sources as a reason to keep an article, and per WP:GOOGLEHITS having "absolute heaps of mentions" on Google doesn't mean anything as it's the quality and significance of coverage that matters. - Aoidh (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you say As I said before what are you referring to? Your first comment literally only said "Per BST, Lugnuts, and StickyWicket", none of whom make any argument for keeping the article in line with any Wikipedia policy or guideline. As for your sources, every single one of those is a trivial mention, and do not contribute to WP:BASIC in any way, and fall far short of WP:GNG. If those are the most "significant" sources that can be found, that's just evidence that there should not be an article of this subject on Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said “as said before”, in reference to BST and Rugby. And Lugnuts and StickyWicket were just adding on to what BST had said. Lugnuts gave a decent secondary source (an example of a “significant” passing mention, as part of WP:BASIC) and StickyWicket just agreed with both BST and Lugnuts. And, in remarks to my “trivial” mentions, there are far more mentions lurking on the Internet and these sources were just some among others which provides more than just a regard in his performance in matches. --WellThisIsTheReaper Grim 23:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter how many trivial mentions there are out there, they don't contribute to notability and at that point you're just appealing to WP:GHITS. None of those sources describe the subject in any detail beyond passing mentions other than the one single one Lugnuts provided, and even that's not significant coverage. If you had a great number of those kinds of sources that would be an argument for WP:BASIC, but these trivial mentions don't cut it. I would say that this for example could not be more trivial, but this somehow manages. These are as trivial as it is possible to get while still somehow managing to have his name in the source. I think you would be hard pressed to find a source that says less about him while still including his name...and this is the best we can do for sources? This is what you linked as examples of why the article should be kept? All that does is highlight that even the people arguing to keep the article can't find coverage of the article's subject and can't justify it being on Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think, as I said above, that there's better than the examples there. I might just get a chance to see what I can identify over the next 48 hours. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:54, 6 August 2022 (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 redirect to List of Pakistan women Twenty20 International cricketers. Tone 09:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gull Feroza

Gull Feroza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails NSPORT/GNG due to lack of significant coverage. WP:SPORTBASIC requires at least one SIGCOV source to be present in the article. –dlthewave ☎ 16:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Square Thing: I've had a look to see if there are any Urdu sources, there only seems to be one saying she got a central contract, and this which I assume is not enough. Suprising seeing as there were two interviews. CreativeNorth (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Pakistan women Twenty20 International cricketers While there seems to be a bit of confusion over the correct spelling of her name, I'm not sure there's going to be enough coverage currently for her. However, again, there is a suitable redirect per WP:ATD, and again could have been BOLDly redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BST (...least two in-depth TV style interviews...). Also meets the updated WP:NSPORT notability guideline: "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below", so going down to the cricket notability states "Have played at the international level for a Test-playing nation" and she has, having played for Pakistan. She's also in the squad for the Commonwealth Games that is happening right now too, suggesting coverage for her exists, albeit not in English. At worst, redirect per RugbyFan Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Pakistan women Twenty20 International cricketers - The sources just aren't there. Also to counterpoint what Lugnuts said above, he's leaving out a very important aspect of the cricket specific listing at WP:NSPORT. It does not say "cricket notability" or that notability is met if they play at an international level. What is says is: "Significant coverage is likely to exist for a cricket figure if they...Have played at the international level for a Test-playing nation." Additionally it says "cricketers who have played...in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof." So with higher international players we can assume there's coverage, with lower international players we can't assume there's coverage. It says nothing about making one notable, it literally only is a guidance on the likelihood of coverage and is not a judgement on notability in any way. Whether this is a higher or lower level of international play I honestly do not know (I'm assuming it's higher) but the end result is the same, reliable sources still need to exist. Whether we should assume coverage or not, we still have to actually provide the coverage to meet WP:GNG, and this article's subject does not. - Aoidh (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2022 (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 redirect to List of Nepal ODI cricketers. This discussion has established quite clearly that of the sources found thus far, only one secondary source is both reliable and substantive. My reading of NSPORTS and NCRIC is that for a player, even an international player, of a non-test-playing nation, a single source is not sufficient for notability, and so the argument to keep isn't supported by the provided evidence. I do not see an argument supporting outright deletion, and so salting is moot; however, we could consider fully protecting the redirect if it becomes necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kishore Mahato

AfDs for this article:
Kishore Mahato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails NSPORT/GNG due to lack of significant coverage. WP:SPORTBASIC requires at least one SIGCOV source to be present in the article. –dlthewave ☎ 15:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Nepal. –dlthewave ☎ 15:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some mentions, but I'm not sure they really combine to provide a more in-depth detailing of the subject. Getting there, but I'm not sure they're there yet. In which case we'd be better off reinstating the redirect for now and seeing what else can be found - the basis for a better article is here and it would be annoying at best to have to do the work again when it's already been done. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, actually WP:GNG requires "multiple" sigcov, so at least two, and GNG trumps everything. This is the 3rd time it's been put into main space, we are on the verge of needing it WP:SALTed. The last AFD made it pretty clear it should have gone to review before recreating, then draftifying, then pushing back into mainspace. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dennis Brown:, this is one of several articles that were created as a redirect by one editor and expanded to a stub shortly thereafter. I wonder if this has the effect (intentional or not) of skirting our review processes, since a redirect would receive less scrutiny than a stub. –dlthewave ☎ 19:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, it's hard to always know what someone's motivations are. Salting would make it moot. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRIN is an essay, which doesn't mean it has no value, it's just not vetted as rigorous as policy and can't be used as a policy based rationale. WP:GNG is the authority for all other sub policy/essay/etc, ie: "multiple reliable sources with significant coverage". That said, I don't have an issue with a delete and redirect, but I would definitely want it full protected (salted) if it went that way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note-- The user above is the person who copy pasted this in the first place. This circumvented the AfC process Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepfriedokra: The user above? Does me and DIVINE look like the same person? I removed the redirect and filled the article using my own words. This has nothing to do with any copy paste from the draft you mentioned below. Human (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those are common sources which can be easily found on google, hence you've not copied or pasted anything here. DIVINE (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing the draft and article at the time of its creation by Simplehuman, I don't think this one is a copy-paste job. –dlthewave ☎ 18:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a copy paste from a draft, as I raised that question on the User:Primefac talk page before and he has already clarified it. DIVINE (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC) [reply]
+What Dennis Brown has said. much better reasoning than I can express. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Of note is that several new sources were added to the article on 31 July 2022‎ (UTC).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:HEY sources added by Nirmaljoshi. BBSTOP (talk) 05:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (nom): I considered changing to Keep after others mentioned the additional sources which were added, but only one of them actually contributes to significant coverage; the rest are stats tables, match reports and the like. Please let me know if I'm mistaken in this assessment:
Green tickY [61] - Good in-depth bio
Red XN [62] - Stats table
Red XN [63] - Match report, brief mention
Red XN [64] - Stats table
Red XN [65] - Team lineup announcement, name appears once in a list
Red XN [66] - Stats table
Red XN [67] - Team lineup announcement, brief mention
Red XN [68] - Team lineup announcement, name appears once in a list
Red XN [69] - Team lineup announcement, name appears once in a list. –dlthewave ☎ 05:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason why one in-depth biography plus at least one other mention isn't enough to keep the article? Especially given that this biography contributes to broadening the scope of Wikipedia to include more diverse articles? If the assessment is that the first source is an in-depth bio then I would certainly support keeping rather than redirecting. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Primary coverage (which includes match reports, team announcements, etc.) and wide ranging databases do not contribute to establishing notability. One of the reasons we usually require multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage is to comply with V and NPOV. In general, BLPs should not be based on a single source. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the criteria for inclusion (WP:GNG) requires multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. The most minimalistic view of that policy is two reliable articles of significant coverage, which this fails. Passing mentions don't count towards meeting notability requirements, although they can be used to source some facts. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's the maximalist view. The minimalist view is that for certain sportspeople one source with significant coverage in the article + routine, statistical coverage can be a proxy for GNG. StAnselm (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SPORTCRIT #5 only makes sense if one such source in the article is sometimes sufficient. StAnselm (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SPORTCRIT was amended in this regard largely to prevent discourage creation of low quality stubs purely by means of scraping a database (see WP:NSPORTS2022, proposal 5; diff of change); it is in no way a bypass of GNG/BASIC and the requirement for multiple sources with significant coverage. The idea of one source with significant coverage being sufficient only has consensus for sources that are of such high quality and depth that it is utterly inconceivable that no other significant coverage exists; that is plainly not the case here. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you even reading what you are linking? The very first line of SPORTCRIT says A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage, that is, multiple published[3] non-trivial[4] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[5] and independent of the subject. First, they are presumed, it isn't automatic just likely IF, and only IF they have been the subject of significant coverage by multiple publishers, ie: non-trivial secondary sources. In short, what GNG says, and what this fails to pass. Multiple, independent, sigcov, RS. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've read that. And I don't think WP:NSPORT is consistent. Or even why it even exists, if it just falls back to GNG. So we just have to make the best sense of it we can. StAnselm (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They all get their authority from GNG. Many of the sub-criteria are essays, or projects, some are policy, but at the end of the day "2+ independent RS w/sigcov" is the gold standard. that is what I meant by minimalist. GNG says "multiple", and 2 is the smallest number that qualifies as "multiple". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is either a keep, based on a decent source and a bunch of passing references coming pretty darned close to BASIC levels of coverage, or it's a redirect to List of Nepal ODI cricketers with a note added to his entry. From the POV of dealing with systematic bias there's some merit in being slightly more generous on the keep side here: chances are that more source exist in Nepal and that given his age, more are likely to be written. I'd be happy enough to keep on the basis that that's likely, but I've no doubt that that will enrage other people so would have no problem with a redirect. What this is not under any circumstances is a delete - there is a long standing consensus that cricket articles such as this are redirected to a suitable list. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In the team for another ODI and T20I. Anyone here are feel free to add this reliable sources [70][71] & Nepalese cricket team in Kenya in 2022. DIVINE (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of squad/team announcements and match reports. Such sources are primary, almost always not significant coverage and do not contribute to demonstrating notability. wjematherplease leave a message... 20:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but without WP:CRYSTALBALLING I think we can presume that the coverage will only grow as he plays more matches. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shariz Ahmad for a similarly new player. I actually created the article on Pat Cummins while he still technically failed the notability guidelines. Not saying Mahato will become a Test cricket captain, but we are allowed to be sensible about this. StAnselm (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2022 (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 14:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M. A. Murtoza

M. A. Murtoza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

guinness record holders, like limca and the other non-notable awards here, aren't notable. i don't see any in depth coverage of Murtoza either as an athlete or anything else. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep: As he is having Guinness world record from official Guinness world record website. And also he is having good reliable news coverage. Chanakya Netha (talk) 04:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Guiness world record is for the number of knee strikes by a group in a minute. All he did was organize an event to have his students break the record. That's definitely not a sign of individual notability, or even WP notability. I'd have to do more research on the notability of the Indian awards he won, but right now I'd say I don't believe he meets WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After further research I have to say that I see no evidence to change my previous comment. There is a Dadasaheb Phalke Award that might confer notability, but it's for films. There are also multiple awards that carry the Dadasaheb Phalke name that are minor awards. I don't see anything to make me believe he's notable for films, so I'm inclined to say the award he won was relatively minor--and seem to be based on his world record (which isn't even for an individual accomplishment). I find it hard to believe that all of his students that participated in achieving that record are WP notable, so I don't think organizing the event confers WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:26, 4 August 2022 (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 keep. North America1000 04:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zibraaz Sahib

Zibraaz Sahib (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:16, 28 July 2022 (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 keep. North America1000 04:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amani Makoe

Amani Makoe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2022 (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 redirect to List of Canada men's international soccer players. ✗plicit 04:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Breganski

Zachary Breganski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2022 (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 keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Anderson (baseball)

Jack Anderson (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 3 August 2022 (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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Only the subject of one AFD discussion, the first AFD was deleted for procedural reasons. Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Mowat

AfDs for this article:
Olivia Mowat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This player fails GNG, & N (sports) Atsme 💬 📧 17:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Caused by a glitch in the curation tool – there was no indication the deletion discussion page was created, so I reverted it in edit history, and used Twinkle instead; thus the (2nd nomination). I just now CSD'd the one I didn't know was created. Atsme 💬 📧 21:29, 27 July 2022 (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 keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 18:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dom Thompson-Williams

Dom Thompson-Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet the criteria of WP:NBASE or the previous, more lenient criteria. He never got close to the majors, did not represent his country internationally and was not a particularly highly regarded prospect. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2022 (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 keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 18:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stetson Allie

AfDs for this article:
Stetson Allie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet the criteria of WP:NBASE nor the previous, more lenient criteria for notability. He never reached the majors, never represented his country internationally and wasn't even a particularly highly regarded prospect. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment agree with above, an above-average draft pick that didn't pan out. Seems to have thrown 4 or 5 shutouts, so that's something. Oaktree b (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2022 (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 keep. Liz Read! Talk! 22:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Leonard (baseball)

AfDs for this article:
Patrick Leonard (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet the criteria of WP:NBASE or the previous, more lenient criteria for notability. He is a fifth-round draft pick who never reached the majors and never represented his country internationally. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2022 (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 keep. ✗plicit 01:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Art Green (ice hockey)

Art Green (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to pass WP:GNG or the revised version of WP:NOLY, as he did not win a medal and I could find no coverage of him other than database listings. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2022 (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 keep. ✗plicit 14:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trey Ball

AfDs for this article:
Trey Ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This BLP does not meet the criteria of WP:NBASE and didn't meet the previous, more lenient notability criteria for baseball biographies either. He never reached the majors and never represented his country internationally. Being a first round draft pick does not make a player inherently notable. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2022 (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 14:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Dean

Joshua Dean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This BLP does not meet WP:NBASE and didn't even meet the notability criteria for sportspeople under the previous, more lenient guidelines. He never rose above the low levels of the minors in North America and never represented his country internationally. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2022 (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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Alvord

Jamie Alvord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence found of WP:Notability. Many sources in article, but vast majority are not independent (sites of the sport organisations, most of them passing mentions anyway), and the others are a blog, and passing mentions in race results. No substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources could be found. Fram (talk) 07:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a reference to an article on James Alvord from Cyclingnews - a reliable, independent source, which includes quotes from Alvord. Fanofcycling (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:21, 10 August 2022 (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 00:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sari Finn

Sari Finn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:26, 10 August 2022 (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 11:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Starr Humphreys

Starr Humphreys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 3 August 2022 (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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donisha Xavier

Donisha Xavier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2022 (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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Stoute

Britney Stoute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:21, 27 July 2022 (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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keanna Francis

Keanna Francis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2022 (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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kasika Samuel

Kasika Samuel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:16, 27 July 2022 (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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elyzabeth Purwaningtyas

Elyzabeth Purwaningtyas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBAD, lacks SIGCOV in reliable sources; not enough to satisfy WP:GNG . zoglophie 15:31, 26 July 2022 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ryker Evans

Ryker Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ineligible for a PROD deletion as that was done already, but as I noted when I set that up: Fails WP:NHOCKEY; only Second All-Star Team in WHL, no professional experience. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: How not? Have you even looked at the above sources? BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll consider, reconsidering it. GoodDay (talk) 01:49, 27 July 2022 (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 00:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tyanna Simon

Tyanna Simon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:33, 2 August 2022 (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 no consensus. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca Canizio

Bianca Canizio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Canizio named All-American again", Cherokee Scout (NC), December 17, 2014 (713 Words)
"Murphy alum Canizio earns all-American for third year", November 25, 2015 (406 Words)
"Canizio seeks pro venture", Cherokee Scout (NC), June 15, 2016 (523 Words)
Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Cherokee Scout is the local newspaper of Murphy, North Carolina, a small town of less than 2,000 people. Cherokee County itself is home to less than 30,000 people. The Scout is almost certainly not a reliable source due to how small the catchment area is. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where does WP say that small papers are unreliable? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Small newspapers usually don't have the resources to maintain a proper editorial and fact-checking system; according to LinkedIn the Scout employs only 10 people for example. They generally engage in hyperlocal routine coverage and churnalism; and they like all local news are notoriously vulnerable to publishing paid content masquerading as proper news. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The first source given above is not SIGCOV. It states only basic information and provides negligible context or commentary. WP:100WORDS is an essay and I'm not sure how widely accepted it is. The second source is better in terms of coverage, but is not independent: It includes several quotes from the subject. The rest of the sources in the article are database sources, not indicative of notability. As to local news coverage... I disfavor using such newspapers to establish notability, as Devonian Wombat notes. Ovinus (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources provided by other users giving the subject enough coverage to pass GNG. The sources provided by User:BennyOnTheLoose are acceptable and can not be discounted solely because they are from a smaller publications. The WLOS source above is certainly GNG approved as well. And others are questionable but there is enough overall independent significant coverage for this article to be kept. Carson Wentz (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The WLOS article clearly counts towards GNG (some users are saying that including quotes from an interview discount it from being SIGCOV? Show me that policy please), and I remain unconvinced that small-town papers cannot contribute to GNG, and as we have four pieces of SIGCOV from the Cherokee Scout in addition to the article from WLOS, we have enough for GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Interviews are not secondary or independent, so do not contribute to establishing notability (per BASIC). The issues with "small town papers" has been noted above; their reliability is questionable and they commonly publish community submitted articles without any editorial oversight or acknowledgement. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:11, 16 August 2022 (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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reloliza Saimon

Reloliza Saimon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 23:21, 1 August 2022 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zak Best

Zak Best (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG. ––FormalDude talk 21:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 8 August 2022 (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Relucio

Ryan Relucio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And yet WP:SPORTCRIT is met with one reference, let alone 3 over a 2-year period in a national newspaper. The first in particular is very in-depth. Nfitz (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Saipan Tribune is not a "national newspaper" in any sense that would indicate notability beyond that of every online paper serving a community <60k. As I said before, the three refs count as one source since they represent commentary by one newspaper (in fact, by just one reporter from one newspaper). JoelleJay (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And yet WP:NSPORT is met. Nfitz (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...Which doesn't mean NSPORT is met, since that requires multiple sources. He does not meet our notability standards, he meets the minimal requirements for an athlete bio to be in mainspace when unchallenged and is afforded somewhat more presumption that further coverage exists. However, when others have looked and not been able to locate more independent SIGCOV, that presumption is rebutted. JoelleJay (talk) 20:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 8 August 2022 (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. Per source analysis, where discussion trended strong delete afterwards. One subsequent source is possibly a press release and while the provider argues we should consider whether it is an agency report ONUS rather suggests that it is for them to make that case. In any event, per the source analysis that was persuasive of later voters, that would count as a single source and notbpass GNG Spartaz Humbug! 07:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ravalcheny van Ommeren

Ravalcheny van Ommeren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mentions in Match reports and international call-ups are routine, but extensive articles about a players call-up or play in a particular match aren't. Nfitz (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those are still routine coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 10:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's a match report which is routine coverage. The other is about her flight problems largely quoting from her mother. Dougal18 (talk) 10:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We routinely have articles for players that score hat-tricks in competitive international matches. I'm hard-pressed to find an example where we haven't! Also, "flight problems" is a gross oversimplification of an issue that resulted in missing international matches and a boycott. Nfitz (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. She didn't boycott the game against Antigua and Barbuda or miss any other games. Other players might have but that cannot give van Ommeren GNG/SIGCOV. Dougal18 (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. But even you disagree with me, then check for other references. Here's a great 2020 one that no one has mentioned. Yes, it's because of transfer, but it's an 8-paragraph in-depth piece. Nfitz (talk) 00:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 08:35, 17 August 2022 (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 03:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Costa (sailor)

Miguel Costa (sailor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. I cannot find any references to this person aside from database references (which means it fails SPORTBASIC) though I was a bit hampered by the common name. ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 02:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some comments here but trying to read through the lines, I can't tell if you want the article Kept or Deleted, just what should be done IF the article is deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:20, 8 August 2022 (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. Sandstein 06:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keitaro Okubo

Keitaro Okubo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NGYMNASTICS and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:53, 6 August 2022 (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 00:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shigeto Suzuki

Shigeto Suzuki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NGYMNASTICS and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 30 July 2022 (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. The community came to a consensus in March that international and professional caps alone do not confer notability and WP:NFOOTY was deprecated. Based on that, I disregarded the comment by Das osmnezz and Rylesbourne, which attempts to LOCALCONSENSUS around the community's decision. I also disregarded the comment from NemesisAT, which does not attempt to advance an argument as to how Engerman is notable, and gave less weight to Fats40boy11, who falls into the trap of SOURCESEXIST. Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Engerman

John Engerman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make sense, GNG is based on significant coverage not what team they've played for. –dlthewave ☎ 03:19, 8 August 2022 (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. czar 04:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Heaver

AfDs for this article:
Jason Heaver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG; WP:SPORTBASIC - noting the new standards that apply to sports biographies. There's no SIGCOV here and no major wins that would lead to a presumption of notability. Tagged for notability since April, nomination as G4 declined back in February - so here we are! Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:51, 30 July 2022 (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. I am more persuaded by the delete arguments around the necessity of independent sourcing for a BLP then keep arguments that articles that are basically interviews are independent. Spartaz Humbug! 12:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jehn Joyner

Jehn Joyner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found these sources which show he is notable in Northern Mariana Islands: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. In addition, he is a young, already internationally capped player (4th most capped in his country) with an ongoing career who helped Northern Mariana Islands youth team beat Macau 2-1 their first international win at any level , one of few Northern Mariana Islands players to ever play abroad, and is mentioned in countless match reports and videos. I feel like the nominator specifically tries to delete only football articles en masse for no reason. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I write this another 30 are probably deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you understand what WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV is? I doubt it. The second article is not independent of the subject, as it primarily relies on quotes from the subject. #3 and #4 are clearly not significant coverage of the person. Both articles discuss the subject for less than 100 words, which means it fails the WP:100 words criteria. The fifth source mentions the subject's name four times, all in a trivial manner. The sixth source mentions the subject once, to introduce a quote, which of course is not independent of the subject. The seventh source mentions the source three times, all trivial mentions of the subject such as "Joyner provided the go-ahead point in the 53rd minute". Please stop spamming these AFD discussions with links that clearly do not demonstrate GNG. It is distruptive. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither WP:SIGCOV or WP:INDEPENDENT says newspaper interviews (or any interviews for that matter) make the article not independent of the subject. Nfitz (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Literally WP:SIGCOV says "Independent of the subject". An interview with the subject is not independent of the subject lol. I don't know how else to put it, but clearly you are not understanding what WP:INDEPNDENT is. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Go back and read it again. There is literally no mention of interviews - let alone articles that partially incorporate interviews in national newspapers. SIGCOV also links to INDPENDENT which also has no mention of interviews, etc. The issue is press releases and their ilk, not interviews by national newspapers. Nfitz (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources 1 and 2 cited above (which were never rebutted by nominator) are by themselves sufficient to get us over GNG, which is sufficient to keep the article regardless of whether the other sources provided also do. Although the sources are not currently cited in the article as allegedly required by NSPORT, GNG does not require that, and if the article meets GNG, it should be kept. Smartyllama (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Source 2 as listed on the comment right above yours, is primarily quotes from the subject. This would fail "independent of the subject". One source is not enough to satisfy GNG or SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please point out the criteria that say articles that include an interview are not "independent of the subject". Nfitz (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that is pretty self explanatory. A person giving an interview about themself, is not independent. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's not self-explanatory. It might not be the best reference for a particular questionable fact; but that a national newspaper is publishing articles that include in-depth interviews is meeting GNG. There are no Wikipedia guidelines or policies to support your claim. I asked for you to point out the relevant Wikipedia criteria about interviews, and you only waved your hands, and offered your opinion. Please stop nominating articles on this basis - it is disruptive. Nfitz (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 15:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG. Source 1 isn't enough. Dougal18 (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Of the sources, the article on him making the USF dean's list is probably the best of the bunch but there isn't a whole lot there once you take away the qoutes from his teacher and parents. The other sources from saipantribune.com are a couple of match reports [112][113] and mention of him winning a student award[114]. But if we treat the first as sigcov, the others don't count towards GNG as multiple publications from the organization is generally regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. Of the mvariety.com sources, this one is mostly based on his own words and thus a primary source and the other two are match reports[115][116] have trivial menions of him. Alvaldi (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the newspaper sources clearly meet GNG. Nominator is falsely claiming that newspaper articles that include interviews are not independent of the subject - despite there being no mention of such criteria in either WP:SIGCOV or WP:INDEPENDENT. Nfitz (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The first Saipan Tribune source, announcing he made his college honor roll, is pretty much the definition of "local news hype" and is not remotely encyclopedic. Every student making the Dean's list gets a letter sent home about it, and sometimes their parents send it on to their local newspaper because they are proud of their child -- which is clearly what happened here given the quotes from the father. This is totally routine non-news and doesn't count toward GNG Red XN. The first Marianas Variety source has three non-quote sentences: not remotely SIGCOV Red XN. The second Saipan Tribune ref is more hyperlocal news announcing he won the "TSL Foundation Male Student Athlete of the Month", which can be immediately disregarded per YOUNGATH Red XN. The second Marianas Variety source is a namedrop and two quotes: obviously not SIGCOV Red XN. The third ST source is a routine match recap Red XN. The third MV source is one quote from him Red XN. The fourth ST source is more of the hyperlocal youth coverage excluded by YOUNGATH Red XN. Quotes, whether enclosed in quotation marks or not, and whether explicitly part of an interview or not, cannot contribute to GNG as they are not independent appraisals of the subject (obviously) and are primary. There is no such thing as "the fact he was interviewed shows he's notable" because GNG is met through significant secondary independent published commentary on a subject in multiple RS, not achievements or other non-SIGCOV "evidence" that the subject has been recognized. JoelleJay (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NBASIC (No multiple independent sources where combining demonstrates notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.) and WP:SPORTCRIT. Sources do not provide enough independent significant coverage for much more than a pseudo biography (nothing near "full and balanced") which is a requirement for a BLP. This is just a listing of a team player. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:BASIC Lightburst (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage. This is a BLP and its insufficient. scope_creepTalk 04:44, 20 August 2022 (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. WP:NFOOTY has been deprecated so arguments based on having played internationally are no longer valid. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin Morgan

Calvin Morgan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. At this time, there is no significant coverage on this player available. We have no adequate sources to indicate notability. None of the keep votes above are not policy based. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. I strongly disagree with the logic that the article should be kept because WP:BEFORE wasn't done as even if that were true, it is not a requirement for deletion. It's strongly encouraged, mostly to prevent wasting time at AfD with situations where sources are readily available if one would only look, but this is not that situation, and sources have not been provided that show that WP:BEFORE was not done. I have looked for sources, as I assume everyone here has. That none have been presented is only evidence of the lack of notability of the subject. Regardless of why the article arrived here, it's here at AfD now and we must examine the article on its own merits rather than on our perceptions of the nominator (two of the three keep arguments are based solely on the merits on the nominator, rather than any guideline or policy-based argument on the article itself). As for the third keep argument, that the article's subject has an ongoing career is not an argument for notability, if anything that just indicates a possible WP:TOOSOON issue. What happens at other WikiProjects has zero bearing on this article's lack of notability. Notability's just not there. - Aoidh (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2022 (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. The community came to a consensus in March that caps alone do not confer notability and WP:NFOOTY was deprecated. Based on that, I disregarded the comments by Zanoni and Das osmnezz which LOCALCONSENSUS around the community's decision. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Murray (footballer)

Stewart Murray (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: no consensus yet
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2022 (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. The "keep" opinions must all be discounted, because they all fail to address the reason provided for this deletion request: lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Nobody here seems to be able to find such coverage, and it is by now clear community consensus that such coverage is required for an article. Sandstein 09:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Deans

Jordan Deans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - where is the significant coverage? Google News has hits but it's for a Gaelic footballer from Ireland of the same name. Definitely not the same Jordan Deans. ProQuest has plenty of hits but, again, it's for the other Jordan Deans. I can't comment on whether the Irish Jordan Deans meets WP:NGAELIC but from my searches I can say that the Anguillan Jordan Deans fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC due to a complete absence of significant coverage that is independent of the subject. The 'keep' comments above have no relevance to any accepted policy or guideline and appear to be WP:LOCALCONSENSUS or invalid. Comments relating to the number of nominations, the number of caps or the age of the player are irrelevant. The article clearly violates SPORTBASIC which states Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article. The article is linked only to database websites with low standards for inclusion and so violates another part of the same guideline which says Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5. Number of caps cannot be used to presume notability, per a broad consensus that removed that metric from WP:NSPORT. BilledMammal (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2022 (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. The community came to a consensus in March that international and professional caps alone do not confer notability and WP:NFOOTY was deprecated. Based on that, I disregarded the comment by Zanoni and Das osmnezz, which attempts to LOCALCONSENSUS around the community's decision. I also disregarded the comment from NemesisAT, which does not attempt to advance an argument as to how Brooks-Belle is notable. Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kayini Brooks-Belle

Kayini Brooks-Belle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:00, 2 August 2022 (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. The community came to a consensus in March that international and professional caps alone do not confer notability and WP:NFOOTY was deprecated. Based on that, I disregarded the comment by Zanoni and Das osmnezz, which attempts to LOCALCONSENSUS around the community's decision. I also disregarded the comment from NemesisAT, which does not attempt to advance an argument as to how Smith is notable. Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tafari Smith

Tafari Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:00, 2 August 2022 (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. The community came to a consensus in March that international and professional caps alone do not confer notability and WP:NFOOTY was deprecated. Based on that, I disregarded the comment by Zanoni andDas osmnezz, which attempts to LOCALCONSENSUS around the community's decision. I also disregarded the comment from NemesisAT, which does not attempt to advance an argument as to how Bryan is notable. Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shemari Bryan

Shemari Bryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

HeinzMaster (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:01, 2 August 2022 (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 01:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Javille Brooks

Javille Brooks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep User has nominated ~25 articles for deletion in ~20 minutes. Imposisble that a WP:BEFORE was done for each, and the nominations appear to be in bad faith. NemesisAT (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - has clearly decided all players that play for national teams he does not feel confer notability are those which should be deleted. The usual revisionism and elitism around notability in sports Zanoni (talk) 08:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No teams confer notability per se. What shows something is notable is coverage in reliable secondary sources that is significant about the person and is also independent of them. So an interview with someone published somewhere is not going to work, and if the publication is their employer it will not work. The exact point that publications become independent is sometimes disputed. People do not become notable because they play on a specific team, or are part of a competition, notability comes from coverage in reliable secondary sources for doing so. The first vote should not be "speedy keep" but procedural keep. However since the individual nominations are presneted individually, there is no reason to link them or to kill them just because they came quickly. If only we had a similar rule on speed of creating new articles. What probably happened in the nominator spent a lot of time reviewing available sources and then did all the nominations at once. This regularly happens. The only way we can justify keeping this article is if someone presents some in-depth coverage of this person in a sources that is independent, reliable and secondary, and we need more than one source, with the 2 sources independent of each other, to really keep the article. It makes sense to go through the football categories starting with one place, since to search for sources on people from a given place, you need to search at times in specific databases that cover that place, so systemically going through one place and then another makes sense. It allows you to build up your knowledge of where to search and not have a steep learning curve for each nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please back your opinion with policy guidelines
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - where is the significant coverage of him? I can find the usual trivial mentions in match reports and match day squad lists but nothing actually addressing Brooks directly and in detail. This therefore means that there is insufficient evidence of a passing of the required guidelines (i.e. WP:GNG and/or WP:SPORTBASIC). AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE and so the copied and pasted keep arguments which make no reference to any Wikipedia guideline or policy should either be ignored completely or given less weight. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - With limited adequate secondary sources this page and sources does not express the notability of the player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmateurGolfer01 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 3 August 2022 (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. The community came to a consensus in March that international and professional caps alone do not confer notability and WP:NFOOTY was deprecated. Based on that, I disregarded the comment by Zanoni and Das osmnezz, which attempts to LOCALCONSENSUS around the community's decision. I also disregarded the comment from NemesisAT and XtraJovial, which do not attempt to advance an argument as to how Burris is notable. Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kareem Burris

Kareem Burris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:01, 2 August 2022 (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. The community came to a consensus in March that international and professional caps alone do not confer notability and WP:NFOOTY was deprecated. Based on that, I disregarded the comment by Zanoni, Das osmnezz, and Skippo10, which attempts to LOCALCONSENSUS around the community's decision. Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kion Parchmont

Kion Parchmont (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:01, 2 August 2022 (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 keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trey Ebanks

Trey Ebanks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:02, 2 August 2022 (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. The community came to a consensus in March that international and professional caps alone do not confer notability and WP:NFOOTY was deprecated. Based on that, I disregarded the comment by Zanoni and gave less weight to the comment from Das osmnezz, which attempts to LOCALCONSENSUS around the community's decision. I also disregarded the comment from NemesisAT, which does not attempt to advance an argument as to how Robinson is notable. Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Robinson (footballer)

Wesley Robinson (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:02, 2 August 2022 (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 05:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Albertini Holness

Albertini Holness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:05, 2 August 2022 (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 00:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kassall Greene

Kassall Greene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep User has nominated ~25 articles for deletion in ~20 minutes. Imposisble that a WP:BEFORE was done for each, and the nominations appear to be in bad faith. NemesisAT (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Each nomination needs to be judged on its own. While at times a large number of nominations made at once may make doing so hard to do, the solution to such a problem is not to made a fast decision, but to keep the nomination open long enough for people to find useable reliable sources to boost the article. I am going to go look and see if I can find some.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I did find this photo with him named in the caption [122]. This is not enough to justify keeping the article, but I think we need to do more searching. Ideally for current people one would do a google news search before nominating the article, and if one found something one would at least say "I found a captioned photo, but that is not enough to add towards GNG." I understand that a good encyclopedia is not found with a huge number of small articles lacking good sourcing and good substantial statements, but we are not going to get to a good article by deleting alone. Low inclusion criteria does not just lead to us having lots of articles on people who are not notable, it leads to use having articles on people who are notable that either do not mention all the things they did to show notability or do not come close to using all needed sources. Basically some article creators create a bare minimum article, and then hope others will come improve it, but when they have flooded the project with lots of new content no one ever really comes along to do either, even after a decade. It does not do us good to delete articles that will just be recreated in a few months when people bother to check in depth for sources, so I think we need to make sure to let this nomination run its course until we are sure we have ruled out there being any reliable sources that are in-depth and give significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per NemesisAT. In addition, he is a young international capped player with an ongoing career. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Bilorv (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2022 (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. Spartaz Humbug! 12:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Faisal Hamidi

Faisal Hamidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep there are a couple of sources that he played as Team Afghanistan goal keeper. See here In Persian [[123]]; [[124]]; and In English [[125]]; [[126]] Jawad Haqbeen (talk) 01:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per NemesisAT, Fats40boy11, and Jawad Haqbeen. In addition, he is a international capped player with an ongoing career. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources linked above are deprecated (Sputnik News), a routine transactional announcement where he is mentioned in a list of names, and two sports stats databases. These are not remotely close to meeting GNG. Fats40boy11, a high rate of nominations isn't a valid speedy keep rationale as there is no policy- or guideline-based requirement for BEFORE and anyway we can't discern whether the nom actually did check for sources for each article beforehand. What matters here is whether the subject meets GNG, and from the sources provided above that seems to be a resounding no. JoelleJay (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @JoelleJay. I didn’t give a speedy keep, I gave a weak keep. That being said, I didn’t explain myself fully. To be clear, I agree with Das Osmnezz and Jawad Haqbeen. I also agreed with the point Nemesis made, and also raised it this point. However, I gave it a ‘weak keep’ at the time, and will stick with this or draftify. Fats40boy11 (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fats40boy11, but what does the rate of nominations have to do with whether this article subject is notable? There is nothing in our current rules prohibiting making many noms, so objecting to that wouldn't be considered a valid keep reason by closers. JoelleJay (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did personally give a ‘weak keep’, but as said above I didn’t explain myself fully at the time. As per JoelleJay, I agree that there are questions about whether the subject is notable, but I am in a way sat on the fence regarding this article. Are there any other reliable sources out there that we could find and use? If so, please leave them below. That being said, I’m leaning to the article being draftified. Any future contributions, or lack of, will have a strong influence on my decision, but there is no question that the article needs significant expansion should there be sources out there. However, we can’t keep articles if the sourcing is not good enough. Fats40boy11 (talk) 06:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Vacating my closure of no consensus and relisting for further input or an admin closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––FormalDude talk 04:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:DINC KSAWikipedian (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those is a valid keep rationale. JoelleJay (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My own search for "فیصل حمیدی" returned little beyond what was mentioned by the other !voter above: mentions in routine transactional announcements and stats databases. Right now there is exactly one keep !vote that makes any type of P&G-based argument, which is certainly not sufficient for retaining the article and especially not when it is situated around non-GNG sources. JoelleJay (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My previous comment said any future contributions, or lack of, will have a strong influence on my decision. As I have not found reliable sources that are sufficient in keeping the article, and other users have not found anything since my comment, I have thought carefully about my !vote for a considerable amount of time. As per JoelleJay, the sources above in this AFD are not sufficient in retaining the article. I did also lean toward draftify in my previous comment, but nobody has convinced me that sources may be out there and may just be difficult to find, hence why I have come to my conclusion. Fats40boy11 (talk) 06:37, 20 August 2022 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby King (fighter)

Bobby King (fighter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMMA. Highest ranking by Fight Matrix is 94th, and he has not appeared in any of Sherdog's top 10 list. I don't know why people are still using NSPORT guidelines that were changed in March for articles. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 19:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Although there does not seem to be that much significant coverage at the moment he appears to be a fairly prominent competitor.[129] Zafir94 (talk)
  • The sources mentioned at this discussion are a video highlight and two sources reporting on the same comments he made after a fight stating that he should be ranked by Bellator and deserved more recognition. Of course that was before he lost his next fight. Doesn't seem like significant independent coverage to me. Papaursa (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I went back to look at the sources for this article, besides the ones I commented on a few days ago. Fight announcements and results are typical for every fighter and are insufficient to confer WP notability. I don't see multiple instances of the significant independent coverage required to show WP notability. I have no objection to someone making a draft copy of this article to work on, but the AfD discussion needs to run its course. Papaursa (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Zafir94 (talk) 03:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Zafir94, do you want to change your "bolded" opinion above? Liz Read! Talk! 06:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per Papaursa, as lacking notability. It is likely too soon. An indication of a pseudo biography or a resume can be found when there is only professional accomplishments, which are only parts of a BLP, and content such as "Starting his first fighting career...", "Starting out his MMA career...", and "King made his Bellator debut" are good indicators pointing to "just a resume". The elaborate "MMArecordbox" does not enhance an article as some seems to think and being a "fairly prominent competitor" is not a criteria to advance notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources provided are routine for MMA and do not contain SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2022 (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. The "keep" opinions assert that the subject meets WP:GNG, but they do not explain by virtue of which sources she does so. These opinions are therefore discounted. Sandstein 13:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqui Melksham

Jacqui Melksham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject seems to be notable only for a single event. Normally, I'd suggest that the page be redirected to the event at issue, but it seems that the game itself isn't notable enough to merit an article, so I think deletion is warranted. Plandu (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ So officiating in more than one match equals an automatic GNG pass? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Officiating the opening match of the world cup does.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, significant coverage in sources meets GNG. GiantSnowman 15:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of significant sources. She officiated the World Cup opening match. Definitely meets WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is this trolling, or do you not actually understand what GNG is? JoelleJay (talk) 03:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of significant sources in the article.BabbaQ (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Hmlarson, WP:GNG has been met indeed. And also congrats to England.BabbaQ (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The FIFA source is not independent, ☒N. Worldfootball.net is a stats database, fails SIGCOV ☒N. The DFB.de site just lists Melksham's name -- trivial coverage, ☒N. No idea what's in the South East Advertiser, Question?. The ESPN opinion piece is WP:primary and does not contain SIGCOV, ☒N. The CBS opinion piece is also primary, ☒N. JoelleJay (talk) 04:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG due to a complete absence of significant coverage in sources independent of the subject. Participation-based criteria no longer exist for football and, in any case, referees were never covered under WP:NFOOTBALL so this would have been a 'delete' even before the recent WP:NSPORTS changes. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I don't see how GNG is met. I mostly agree with JoelleJay's analysis, except the South East Advertiser is a newspaper, very local, but let's give it the benefit of the doubt. 1 reliable source with possible significant coverage. I also don't think that PRIMARY applies to the ESPN opinion column nor the CBS piece. This quibble is really a point of order. They are opinion pieces, yes, and not reporting. Therefore they are not likely to have useful encyclopedic information, and I think these are no exception, because while the topic's actions are discussed for this one event, it doesn't make an encyclopedia article. I have some sympathy that the topic may pass ANYBIO#2 as refereeing a World Cup match is a rare accomplishment, but I just don't see this passing WP:WHYN. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 00:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @78.26, FWIW, I'm basing my PRIMARY analysis on opinion columns and editorials being included as examples of primary sources here and here, and therefore explicitly excluded from contributing to GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 01:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay, that's fine, but better to cite WP:RSEDITORIAL then, not PRIMARY, in my opinion. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The South East Advertiser piece (available via NewsBank) is about 280 words, but over 100 of them are Melksham expressing her feelings about the final etc. I couldn't find enough independent coverage in reliable coverage to argue that the subject meets GNG, although there were lots of reports covering her role in the US-Brazil match. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2022 (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 13:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orion Mills

Orion Mills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:37, 29 July 2022 (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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 01:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Aninzo

Christopher Aninzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - @GiantSnowman:, I found these sources which show he is notable in the Northern Mariana Islands: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 among other sources. In addition, he is a young, already internationally capped player with an ongoing career,, one of few Northern Mariana Islands players to ever play abroad athe only one in England, nd is mentioned in countless match reports and videos. I feel like the nominator specifically tries to delete only football articles en masse for no reason. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 08:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would say this very lengthy Saipan Tribune piece and the M Variety article are enough for GNG. We need to be wary that there are only two decent newspapers in his country by the looks of things so it's difficult to gain the coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources required. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC) On second thought, the M Variety source is too weak for this to be a GNG pass. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The M Variety article is almost entirely direct and indirect quotes, and should not be considered independent SIGCOV. That leaves just the Saipan Tribune interview, which has just 8 sentences of non-quoted material and only ~3 that aren't primary or non-independent (like reporting that he thanked various people). Not seeing GNG from these sources. JoelleJay (talk) 04:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 11:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is a somewhat closer call than most of the other football-related AfDs we've seen recently, but I'm still not convinced that the available sources add up to notability. Of the seven sources cited above, four are clearly passing mentions and one is a Twitter post. That leaves us with two sources: the Marianas Variety article, which is entirely a non-independent interview (every sentence is either paraphrases Aninzo or quotes him directly), and the Saipan Tribune article, which is at best a few sentences of independent analysis. Since I've been unable to find any indication that better sources exist (either online or offline), he doesn't seem to have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. I understand that there aren't many media outlets in the Northern Mariana Islands, but my view—and, judging from the consensus in the RfC, the view of others as well—is that hewing to the notability guidelines in cases like these is almost always going to be the best way to ensure that we're only keeping articles that can live up to basic policy expectations. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per the cogent argument by Extraordinary Writ above. Agreed that the sourcing is too weak to support even a presumption of GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I still think that the Saipan Tribune article linked multiple times in this discussion is good. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any other good sources. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:14, 24 August 2022 (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. I find Sportsfan's analysis of the coverage persuasive. The two keep arguments that follow are extremely weak. The plain keep is hardly an argument at all. The weak keep makes a better argument but still presents no sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ramin Ott

Ramin Ott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Besides the FIFA article. there is no sources that satisfy either criteria. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ramin Ott is a very important personality for American Samoa football, and a very important figure for the nation, since he is the top scorer, having scored crucial goals, changing the course of football for his whole nation, making him a national hero, and his page, being one of few about footballers from American Samoa with some information, must not be banned under no circumstances, since references and sources can easily be found.

Thank you, Ach.de.graf

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. The FIFA source is good but not enough on its own. GiantSnowman 08:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per @Ach.de.graf:. He is American Samoa's all-time top scorer (see this and this), was captain at one point, and scored in their famous first ever victory, a 2-1 win over Tonga (see this and this). He was featured in the well-known documentary Next Goal Wins] (see this and this) and has been interviewed by World Soccer magazine (see this) Also, these sources show he is notable in American Samoa: 1, 2, 3, and 4. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I wrote this another 30 are probably deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The first six sources clearly fail the WP:100 words (on the subject) that is required to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. The FIFA source is fine. The eighth source is quotes from Ott, which fails "independent of the subject". The ninth source is not independent of the subject and the last source listed also fails WP:100 words. This is a clear fail of both WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Please stop bombarding these AFD discussions with links that clearly do not demonstrate GNG. This is distruptive. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The FIFA source is not fine, it fails independence. JoelleJay (talk) 03:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain how? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: He is the topscorer of American Samoa football team, an important public figure. I found some sources (not much reliable) from youtube. Its really hard to find sources about a player from American Samoa. But Im pretty sure that many offline sources would be available from newspapers and magazines.Silentone1995 (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Happy to change my !vote if new sources are found, however currently the subject lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. There is zero presumption of SIGCOV for footballers, even international ones, if there are no SIGCOV sources cited in the article. Zilch. So appeals to his status as a "top scorer" have no weight. This means GNG must be demonstrated to prevent deletion, and efforts to do so have manifestly failed. How many times do we have to remind the same editors that passing mentions, routine match recaps, transactional coverage, promo pieces from governing sports orgs, interviews, and unreliable sources do not count towards notability? It should not be up to other editors to fact-check every single source presented by these editors at each AfD just to ensure they meet our basic requirements for independence and reliability, let alone SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 03:43, 31 July 2022 (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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 12:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taichi Adachi

Taichi Adachi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NGYMNASTICS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Japan. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Sources are not good enough with one link to Facebook. Not been able to find any secondary or reliable sources. Fats40boy11 (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Taichi Adachi won the all-around title at the 2020 Liukin Invitational Elite, which applies to WP:NGYMNAST criteria: Won a senior individual medal at an elite international competition. Also, JGA, Gymternet & FIG are all independent of Taichi Adachi himself, so sources there are independent sources. For secondary, take the example of the FIG link, as in a Secondary source, information is selected, modified and arranged in a suitable format, and the FIG must have collected information from his documents in Japanese, such as birth certificate, high school profile...NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @NguyenDuyAnh1995 In the article, it states that Adachi is ‘currently considered one of the most promising competitors in Japan’, but the source that follows that goes to a Facebook page. Is there a more reliable source to support this claim? I haven’t been able to find any to back this claim myself, but do you have any (even if they are not in English) other sources that can back this claim as someone who is more familiar with Adachi.
    In regards to the WP:NGYMNAST, I’m not entirely swayed by the Liukin Invitational Elite as an ‘elite’ competition (I don’t necessarily agree with what defines ‘elite’, but it is what it is). Although this is a problem, I think there is also a problem with the sourcing. Personally, I don’t think he is notable for his own article. As a former gymnast myself in my youth, I would love as many gymnastic articles as possible. However, we can’t go creating articles for every gymnast who we cannot confirm are notable. Fats40boy11 (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fats40boy11 Adachi ranked 7th at the All-Japan championships, which makes him one of the most promising. If you don’t think it should be in the article or need sources to back the claim, you are free to edit or add your opinion on the article’s talk page, not in deletion discussion. Also, Liukin Invitational Elite meets WP:NGYMNASTICS’s criteria to be an elite competition with at least 8 notable gymnasts: Junpei Oka, Kazuyuki Takeda, Seiya Taura, Asher Hong, William Emard, Javier Sandoval, Yevgen Yudenkov, Ryosuke Doi... NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your response NguyenDuyAnh1995. However, I think it is reasonable to bring up issues with sourcing here as we may be able to improve the article rather than delete it, and this would be visible to other users who are at the AFD. It isn’t just the problem with the Facebook source, which was the one that I pointed out earlier, but the other sources as well. It feels a bit like some are mirrors of the source, which I’m sure you disagree with, but this is what I feel like when looking at it. Of course, the main issue of concern is whether Liukin Invitational Elite passes WP:NGYMNASTICS and this is what most people are more than likely going to look at in this AFD. Fats40boy11 (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NguyenDuyAnh1995, it is completely reasonable to mention existing sources in an AFD discussion. At some point, this discussion needs to be closed and countering opinions that there are no sources establishing notability by mentioning specific sources that do this can have an important impact on the closer's decision on whether or not an article has promise and should be kept or whether it should be deleted. The AFD closer isn't reviewing the article talk page to see if these discussions have been happening there. Liz Read! Talk! 04:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The keep !voter above was blocked for socking in AfDs. Anyway, no sources meeting GNG have been identified; the sockmaster's insistence that stats databases from governing sports organizations are SIGCOV and independent is utterly meritless on both counts; the article talk page is not where deletion discussions should be held; and absent at least one source of SIGCOV cited in the article, this topic fails SPORTCRIT and therefore cannot presume existence of coverage through NGYMNAST. JoelleJay (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NGYMNASTICS. LibStar (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2022 (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 redirect to List of Denmark international footballers (1–24 caps). Redirect is the most reasonable outcome here, if there are more sources, the article can easily be brought back. Tone 09:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jørgen Nielsen (footballer, born 1923)

Jørgen Nielsen (footballer, born 1923) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE due to being an article that replicates a database entry. In addition, it fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT.

Previously nominated in a group nomination which was closed as no consensus on procedural grounds. BilledMammal (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kges1901:, You do realize that what you can see from that page is only a tiny preview of each much longer article? Also, that was just one search on one non-Danish newspaper archive, and there are already 5 articles about him. Clearly WP:BEFORE was not done. Article needs improvement but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 04:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When the article is under 500 words, I have found that the likelihood that there is enough coverage for an article is pretty low, and from what I can see of the articles they seem to fit the pattern of being relatively passing routine mentions. Because Jørgen Nielsen is a common name in Denmark, we can't be certain that newspaper articles are actually about him, and many of them are from outside of the time period that he was actively playing during. making it unlikely that they are actually about him. Using more restrictive searches in the newspaper database such as this significantly reduces the number of hits, which are mostly not from the right period. Even using booleans in newspaper database searches is not foolproof because they will still pick up on unconnected usages of words in unrelated articles. Kges1901 (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The existence of search results does not contribute toward notability, and at least a couple of the "keep" !votes are meaningless word salads; however, nobody seems to have analyzed the Danish sources in detail either.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 16:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect as above, as while it isn't unreasonable to imagine offline sources do exist in Danish, we can't just assume they do and keep on that basis alone. The BNA search results don't assert notability, even from the little that can be retrieved from the free search preview and his time in the UK seemed very limited, so unlikely to much in British media. Redirecting seems the best compromise. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect, although the title is not a search term anyone would ever use... Anyway, there is NO presumption of notability or SIGCOV afforded to footballers. You cannot justify a presumption of SIGCOV based on someone having played football at a "high level" because that exact justification has been deprecated. Therefore, claims that sources exist in an inaccessible database where all we get is hits on a very common name must be rejected. Additionally, the lack of even a single cited SIGCOV source means this article fails the requirements for sportsperson articles and would need exceptionally compelling IAR arguments to be retained. JoelleJay (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is not a valid rationale for keeping an article, and no evidence has been provided that there is sufficient coverage to demonstrate notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:15, 2 August 2022 (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. Spartaz Humbug! 16:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC) Adding a rationale per request. The vast majority of the initial votes were given less weight as they either did not advance a policy based argument or were bare assertions without explanation. There was a detailed source analysis on offered sources that was not effectively refuted and the clear trend of the discussion was to delete after that. Beyond that there was a lengthy discussion on whether material based on interviews are sufficient to base a gng pass but that didn’t come to a clear conclusion that would justify devaluing the large majority of delete votes following the source analysis. Spartaz Humbug! 06:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clement Baegeni

Clement Baegeni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See, that's the thing. If we abandon subject-specific criteria for sportspeople, and only GNG matters, than being professional or semi-professional makes absolutely no difference. StAnselm (talk) 23:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. The little coverage of him seems to be centered on the period of July-August 2017 so even if it was significant, it would fail WP:SUSTAINED. Note that the professional status of the league he plays in and the number of appearances for the national team has no bearing on his notability as an amateur footballer with zero national team appearances can very well be more notable than a professional player with handful of NT appearances if he has more significant coverage. Happy to change my !vote if better sources are found. Alvaldi (talk) 11:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - only two of the sources above are good enough IMHO, but that is sufficient to show notability. GiantSnowman 18:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Something not including enough sources to pass WP:GNG should not be the criteria for proposing deletion, and efforts to improve the article should always be the first priority. It seems clear that this player can pass notability, the article just needs improvement. El Dubs (talk) 04:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pretty hard to conjure SIGCOV out of the sources provided, none of which provide information beyond shallow summaries of his performance at one tournament.
1. Solomon Star: 4 sentences stating the number of goals he had in the Solomon Cup and his likelihood of winning a tournament award, not SIGCOV, ✗ Fail
2. RNZ: two sentences and a quote, far from SIGCOV, ✗ Fail
3. SIBC 1: another 4 sentences on his Solomon Cup performance, not SIGCOV, ✗ Fail
4. SIBC 2: Routine match recap with a few sentences mentioning him, ✗ Fail JoelleJay (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am interested to see the impact of JoelleJay's source analysis
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Per JoelleJay, the sources provided do not even come close to providing the significant coverage required by WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 04:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete owing to a lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources and per JoelleJay. My searches come up with nothing helpful to demonstrate notability. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Reference 1 looks a lot better than the impression given above. Reference 5 looks particularly good - I'm not sure why this one wasn't included in the reference analysis (or the next 2, but they are weaker). He does seem to have received a lot of coverage in his country for his Golden Boot win.Nfitz (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because the first reference is trivial, and the fifth one is a primary source because literally everything to be gleaned from it comes directly from him; everything else in that source is trivial. - Aoidh (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a new and incorrect definition of primary source. I don't see how the first reference is trivial. It's not the greatest in the world, but it passes the line. Nfitz (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's neither new, nor incorrect. It is Wikipedia policy: Further examples of primary sources include: ...other opinion pieces, including (depending on context) reviews and interviews... It is primary when the person being interviewed is the subject of the article. When the content of the source comes from the person's mouth, that makes it both a primary source, and a non-independent source as a person cannot be independent of himself. If Wikipedia policy isn't good enough, here's a UMASS Boston guide that very clearly spells it out, and here is another guide that points this out, and here's the American Library Association pointing it out. Both Wikipedia policy and scholarly consensus is in agreement with the fact that interviews of this type are a primary source. When the person being interviewed is also the subject of the article, it makes it a non-independent source, as the person the content is coming from is the subject. Wikipedia:Interviews#Primary or secondary? sums it up well: The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source and is also non-independent material. So this isn't something I'm making up, this is a well-established rule across not only Wikipedia but elsewhere.
As for the reference that you think is not trivial, it says he's leading the golden boot race, scored some goals, and then quotes him directly (again, primary). If you take away the quotes from him, all that is left is trivial. If this is the best we can find for coverage, then there's no notability there because these sources are not sufficient by any metric, and certainly not by WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining a pretty obvious concept. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well they have, User:Sportsfan 1234. But there's a major flaw. There was no interview (and no one has mentioned one until Aoidh started telling us how we shouldn't mention them). Nfitz (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You've done a great job explaining why we can't use content from interviews here, but I wouldn't hold out much hope that quoting policies or guidelines or global consensus will produce a change in perspective...[134][135] JoelleJay (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's the relevance though, User:JoelleJay - there was no interview in reference 5, and no one mentioned an interview in the preceding discussion? How is this not a strawman argument? Nfitz (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It did inspire me to write up User:Aoidh/Essays/Interviews as a way to say a lot without having to rewrite it each time, but realistically the changes of someone bothering to read all of that is near zero. - Aoidh (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's smart, I bookmark all the contentious AfDs I encounter, but then always forget which ones included which arguments or even which bookmark folder they're in. And I definitely don't follow my own advice about the utility of explaining things over and over... JoelleJay (talk) 04:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • You've made a very good argument User:Aoidh, on why we can't use information solely from interviews to support facts - especially those that may be contentious. But that's not what we are doing here; we are trying to establish notability. You've spent a lot of time explaining why an interview is primary. But what interview - I never mentioned an interview? The article included quotes from a press conference! Also what hasn't been considered here is the context. That an article includes quotes from the subject of the article during a press conference doesn't suddenly make the article ineligible as a GNG reference. Even if the piece was exclusively an interview (and it most certainly isn't), that a national newspaper would have been interviewing the subject would indicate notability of the subject. BTW, there's no mention of press conferences in WP:PRIMARY (or NPOV, INDEPENDENT, or GNG; press releases are mentioned in the latter two - but there's a difference between a release, and a post-game press conference where multiple media outlets are asking questions). Nfitz (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have an idea of what an interview is that is seriously inconsistent with both Wikipedia and scholarly consensus or what makes an independent source, especially your misunderstanding of who publishes the interview giving it some degree of independence. That doesn’t matter, the content is still from the subject himself, and is still not independent of himself. However, you say that you never mentioned an interview and then go on to explain that it’s actually a press conference. That’s an interview. Per Oxford, a press conference is "an interview given to journalists by a prominent person in order to make an announcement or answer questions." So anything from a press conference is not independent, and that’s why I brought it up. Aside from the quotes from press conferences, all that’s in those sources is trivial coverage. The sources are insufficient for determining notability because they’re either trivial or wholesale repetitions of press conferences and thus not independent. Based on previous AFDs, I understand that you’re not going to agree with me no matter how clearly the concept of sourcing is spelled out to you, and that’s fine. I’m not responding to change your mind, I’m responding so that someone else commenting sees the quality of those sources for what they are and can assess them accordingly, and to highlight to any closer that your argument is inconsistent with both Wikipedia policy and the scholarly community. I think I’ve made my point as best as I can, so unless you make a good point in your response, there’s no point in me continuing with this discussion. - Aoidh (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 40 words of a quote in a 230 word newspaper article, doesn't turn the article into an interview. You've just spent 265 words without even noting where in Wikipedia there's guidance that 3 quoted sentences is not possible in a GNG source. Nfitz (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said that the source itself was an interview. I said that if you take out the quotes from him (which is not independent content), all that's left is trivial. You don't need a hyper-specific guideline to tell you that. - Aoidh (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree about the triviality. But more to the point - where is the Wikipedia guidance/policy that says interviews can't be used to establish notability. The essay WP:INTERVIEW notes that a multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability. Nfitz (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A "multitude of interviews" is one thing this article's subject does not have, so thats a moot point. Wikipedia policy has already been linked above, and it's already been explained why interviews with the article's subject do not show notability for that subject; in what world would a person's comments be independent of himself? That makes no sense and as explained above is completely inconsistent with how interviews are treated both on and off of Wikipedia. However, this has been explained and I'm not going to explain further; you disagree with how interviews work and with the definition of triviality, and we'll just have to agree to disagree. - Aoidh (talk) 02:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INTERVIEW is an essay so has little weight here. What the subject says about themselves is primary, per OR's guidance on interviews, and is not independent of the subject, per duh. GNG requires sources be both independent and secondary, therefore we cannot use material quoting what the subject (or anyone else) says (about anything) to establish notability. JoelleJay (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both of the good sources I'm advocating (1 and 5) are being eliminated because they contain quotes. I've asked for which guidance or policy supports this. I've yet to have a clear answer - other than hand waving. Nfitz (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2022 (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 no consensus. No prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matalena Daniells

Matalena Daniells (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Most sources are trivial. [136] is fully of quotes and cannot count towards GNG and [137] seems to be a reasonable source, but one source falls well short of both GNG and SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Sustained non-routine coverage in independent reliable sources, as we would expect for an international football captain. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, leaning delete per Dougal18. I've removed the blog source as those are never, ever allowed on BLPs. Despite the ref bombing, I still haven't seen any independent SIGCOV of this person.
Article source analysis

1. FB Ref: stats page, ✗ Fail
2. Queensland College of Teachers finalist announcement: not independent, ✗ Fail
3. Samoa Observer 1: routine match recap (and non-grammatical title doesn't give much confidence in quality), ✗ Fail
4. MyGameday reprint of press release: not independent, ✗ Fail
5. Westside News article on Queensland teaching award: cannot access, but unlikely to contain independent SIGCOV, Not sure.
6. Innisfail Advocate 1: cannot access, but presumably a match recap so unlikely to have SIGCOV, Not sure.
7. Innisfail Advocate 2: cannot access, appears to be award announcement, Not sure.
8. Samoa Observer 2: almost entirely quotes, no SIGCOV and not independent, ✗ Fail
9. Moreton Bay United: club website, not independent, ✗ Fail
10. Football Queensland: governing sports org website, not independent, ✗ Fail
11. Loop Samoa 1: single independent sentence mentioning her, no SIGCOV, ✗ Fail
12. Stuff.nz: passing mention, no SIGCOV, ✗ Fail
13. Solomon Star: routine match recap, passing mentions, ✗ Fail
14. Pine Rivers Press 1: cannot access, Not sure.
15. Innisfail Advocate 3: cannot access, but presumably transactional report on Daniells playing for Samoa, unlikely to have independent SIGCOV, Not sure.
16. Loop Samoa 2: named in a list of players, no SIGCOV, ✗ Fail
17. Pine Rivers Press 2: cannot access, Not sure.
18. Loop Samoa 3: named in a list of players, no SIGCOV, ✗ Fail
19. Pine Rivers Press 3: cannot access, Not sure.

Can someone with Gale access describe the newspaper articles that cover her? JoelleJay (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay:
Ref 5: Passing mention (Centenary State High's Matalena Daniells, a former Samoa Women's National Football Team captain, made it to the finals after inspiring students to excel and participate in sport.)
Ref 6: Passing mention (However we have also been very fortunate to have an influx of young and energetic players come into the team, Matalena Daniells..)
Ref 7: Award announcement for a "Pierre De Coubertin Award"
Ref 14: Brief interview, almost all verbal quotes from subject
Ref 15: Announcement about being named in the Samoan team for the Oceania Football Confederation (OFC) Women's Nations Cup, with some brief interview quotes
Ref 17: Like ref 14
Ref 19: Report on her captaincy during the Pacific Games (MATALENA Daniells, the Moreton Bay United Jets defender, has led Samoa to its first medal in the Pacific Games.) More than a passing mention and mentions her brother, but a very short article.
Very few actually describe her in any detail, although I tend to consider that if a media outlet wants to interview someone, there has to be some noteworthy reason to do so. Ref 5 and 6 are definitely not sigcov. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! It doesn't look like there's sufficient independent coverage to support an article. I don't think being interviewed is a great indicator of potential notability, either, especially when it's in local press. And if even local sources aren't discussing her in detail, I think that's decent evidence she is not notable. JoelleJay (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep One significant references falls far short? That's a bit of an exaggeration. Gale access is available through Wikipedia Library to everyone. I've only pulled Reference 15; a 10-paragraph article is more than an ammouncement - meets GNG. Nfitz (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2022 (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 Draftify. See now Draft:Teppei Miwa. Sandstein 09:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teppei Miwa

Teppei Miwa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Undersourced article packed with redlinked events, shows a gymnast who although has competed at national level has never won anything at national level. Lacks SIGCOV, fails WP:GNG; WP:SPORTSPERSON. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is that a reasonable request? This is enwiki. This article links to NO Japanese language article. The English article is being judged, during New Page Patrol, 'as found'. You get an English Google and an evaluation of the sources presented as part of the free deal. You want more than that, you have to buy a subscription. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Likewise, search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet (such as Japanese or Greek), which is often in the lede." JTtheOG (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Alexandermcnabb: Yes. you are required to do WP:BEFORE prior to nominating an article, regardless of which language the sources may be in. Here are a few sources I found with a brief search of "三輪哲平 体操競技" (the first part is his name, the second part is "artistic gymnastics"):

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @JoelleJay in WP:INDISCRIMINATE, there’s no requirement of the sources as you said, & in WP:WHATSIGCOV there’s no compulsory of prose as well. As the source meets the WP:GNG criterion of significant coverage (describing the gymnast’s information directly & in details), reliable (as FIG is reliable in gymnastics) & independent (as the FIG is independent of the gymnast himself), the article passes WP:GNG. NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @NguyenDuyAnh1995 No, stats databases are not SIGCOV and do not contribute to notability. See WP:SPORTCRIT: Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion ... Although statistics sites may be reliable sources, they are not sufficient by themselves to establish notability. FIG is also not independent, as it is the governing body for his sport and therefore has a vested interest in the type and amount of coverage he receives. JoelleJay (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay The criteria above is applied to trivial coverage. If the whole page is about one person, not listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, it’s not WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Also, according to Cambridge dictionary, vested interest means a strong personal interest in something because you could get an advantage from it. What can the FIG get advantage from Teppei Miwa’s birthdate, birthplace, high school/college team, idol & injury information? NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay The Fig link is also not statistics. Statistical database typically contain parameter data and the measured data for these parameters. NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The criteria above are defining trivial coverage and giving examples of it specific to sports, including what are clearly sports statistics databases (not the same thing as a "statistical database"). This is not debatable. See, e.g., the numerous AfDs where results databases/stats profiles (and governing sports bodies) were explicitly rejected from counting toward GNG. And what purpose do you think FIG, or FIFA, or the IOC serves? Each is focused on promoting their sport(s), which obviously includes promoting positive coverage of their competitors. It also means their interest in a subject is not reflective of the general public's interest in it, just like how student body president candidates profiled in a college newspaper do not reflect the actual notability of those people outside the college. JoelleJay (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay Firstly, just because some deletion discussion mentioned it doesn’t make it right, especially when it’s not written on any WP article. The FIG link is not trivial coverage as in WP:TRIVIALMENTION, or in WP:SPORTCRIT (no definition). Secondly, google “ what is statistics database” & see if there is any results showing any definition different from Statistical database, as you claim. Thirdly, how can creating a profile of an athlete help to promote the sport? Does that lure more fans & investments? No. It would be vested interest with the teams that supply Miwa with facilities & medical condition like Juntento University, Seifu Highschool, or JGA if he competes in international tournaments, as his results & prize will bring money & reputation to them. But the FIG does not. They can get advantage of the popularity of those like Simone Biles, Aliya Mustafina...but through their performance & media coverage, not profiles on their websites. NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Some deletion discussion" -- I linked multiple AfDs where sports database sources were uncontroversially disregarded when considering GNG. And it is written down: our guidelines literally exclude statistics sites/databases, which FIG and other things like sports-reference.com (the very first result when I type in "sports statistics database") and soccerway etc. indisputably are. And if you don't understand how a business can profit off of promoting its membership, or why its coverage of its own members reflects the interests of the organization rather than the world at large (in the exact same way a corporate profile written by HR does not demonstrate independent detailed coverage of someone's career), then you need to seriously take some time familiarizing yourself with en.wp community standards before contributing at AfD. At this point you're getting into WP:IDHT territory. JoelleJay (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay in sports-reference.com, data is collected statistically with parameters & measured values as it is defined in Statistical database. So the FIG link has nothing related to whatever statistic. You can see it in the example of Brenna Stewart. Also, as I said before, Miwa’s profile only benefit the teams that supplies him with facilities & medical condition, such as Seifu, Juntendo or JGA. He’s not a member of the FIG, but is for his club & national team. NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 06:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, pure results lists are PRIMARY data so are further excluded from GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User has been blocked for socking in this AfD JoelleJay (talk) 04:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment one of the delete vote above says that Yahoo News Japan isn’t available in UK or EEA & can’t see it, which means he has no idea if the source is significant coverage, reliable & independent. Therefore, his “fails GNG” claim is invalid. 113.190.111.42 (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn’t. I can’t see anything and so therefore cannot verify it (unless if some in the UK or EEA can find a way round this). One source is not everything, and you are grasping at straws. From what I have, the article fails WP:GNG. Unless you can provide other sources, this remains the case. Please do not claim a vote is ‘invalid’ because it does no agree with your point of view. Fats40boy11 (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fats40boy11 you can only claim that the source fails WP:GNG if it doesn’t any of the criterion, not because you can’t view it. In Vietnam or Laos, BBC News is forbidden, so does that mean anyone living there can claim that any citation from that website fails GNG even though it meets every criteria? Or the same thing with China & tons of websites forbidden there? Take the example of grading a restaurant with Michelin stars, can you claim that it fails the criterion because you have never eaten there? Your claim is invalid because the problem is yours, not the source. According to Is it down right now? Yahoo News Japan is still working. 113.190.111.42 (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, do not claim any point of view is invalid, it will only cause more problems down the line. I will no longer engage with you in discussion if you do this again.
    I have explained how I cannot view it, and will not explain my previous points again. We should wherever possible use sources that everyone can see no matter of their location. Not everyone has the means to get around this. The same would go for Vietnam or Laos. If your confident that the article passes WP:GNG, then prove it by other sources. I am basing my judgement on the whole article, not one source that I cannot currently view. In my own WP:BEFORE, I have not found anything. I have repeatedly asked for other sources in a respectful manner, but you have been unable to provide and have instead tried to attack and shut down my view as invalid. Fats40boy11 (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Quote from WP:SOURCEACCESS: Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf. 113.190.111.42 (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boom went the sock... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don’t believe the Yahoo article is enough on its own to save the page upon review. I’m not saying it isn’t relevant, but I’m not confident that parts are entirely independent of the subject. For example, in one section, he is described as the “inverted prince who has never failed” by a coach that has worked with the subject in the past. There are some sections that are more relevant than others, but I am still of the belief that more sources are needed to establish notability. Therefore, my view as of now is unchanged as I do not believe that the Yahoo article is enough to save the page. If anyone can find any other sources that may help, then please leave them below. Fats40boy11 (talk) 08:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify my viewpoint, I don’t have any objections to the Yahoo article being used, but believe as parts of it include individuals that have worked with him before, I don’t think that this is enough to sway me and we should look to include other sources as well. Others may have different opinions on this.
    The Yahoo source is referenced after saying that he has become one of the ‘top’ and ‘most promising’ competitors in Japan. I’m not sure that anywhere in the Yahoo source it explicitly says that, and I think we have to be careful when it comes to such claims unless properly referenced by independent sources. (I’m not arguing whether he is or not, but explaining that it needs to be properly referenced)
    Overall, I wouldn’t be against the article being kept if we can establish that he is indeed notable, but at the moment, I still haven’t been convinced that he is notable. Fats40boy11 (talk) 11:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. After looking over the Yahoo article, I do think it provides significant independent commentary from the author...but that makes one potentially SIGCOV source, which I agree with Fats40boy11 is insufficient for GNG. However, given the difficulty in accessing Japanese media I can recognize the possibility of further coverage, so I'm changing my !vote to draftify or userfy to give others with better access a chance to find more SIGCOV sources. JoelleJay (talk) 04:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Upon the above statement by JoellyJay, I think it’s correct to allow users time to find sources and have now been swayed. This will give users time to find and improve the article instead of deleting it straight away. If necessary, we can review the article at some point in the future. However, the article in my opinion does not currently pass WP:GNG, and this needs to be fixed. Fats40boy11 (talk) 06:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify WP:NOTPROMO, notability concerns as per JoelleJay. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: There are issues and this is a good ATD. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2022 (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 13:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Annelyn Alba

Annelyn Alba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBAD. zoglophie 15:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 2 August 2022 (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 Draftify. General agreement that the article needs more work and sources with significant coverage in order to meet notability guidelines. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 07:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Habib Ahmed

Habib Ahmed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 03:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He has a Wisden obituary, which is usually a sign that there is much more coverage available. It's not cited, and I won't be able to add it today, but it's a good indicator that if we were able to access sources - and we're almost totally reliant on printed sources for the era in which the bloke played - that we'd find scads. The commonality of the name and the era and where he played means it looks as if it's difficult to find early accessible internet sources however, which is a shame as with a career that long we'd find a bunch. I'm sure people will object to a redirect for various reasons, but I'm not sure what else we'll be able to do here - I guess a redirect to whichever team he played more most frequently in the Ranji would be best, unless any India-based editors can find more in paper archives or in local non-English language sources. I'll need access to CricketArchive to figure out which that is though. It would be a shame to lose an article about an obviously notable non-white, non-anglophone person however. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we were looking at a redirect here, the List of Hyderabad cricketers would be the best choice - that's the team he played much more frequently for. The list needs updating at some point as well. I am minded towards keeping based on the Wisden obit though. They really don't give those away these days. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Played in 61 first-class matches, which makes the nomination quite frankly odd. Given the amount of matches he played in, there is undoubtedly coverage in print media from the era. He was afforded an obituary by Wisden, which shows his notability as a cricketer. Passes WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is this claimed likely existence of sources sufficient to meet WP:NRV which requires "verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability"?
It's here. You'll notice the different way the name is transliterated. You might want to double check if there are any other versions of the name - this is very common for names from the subcontinent and can cause all sorts of problems when you're looking for references. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per StickyWicket. StAnselm (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe that there is the reasonable assumption that this player should pass WP:GNG in offline coverage and non-English language coverage with the career he had and with the obituary that we already have as well. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify due to lack of significant coverage. Passing NCRIC does not mean that notability is presumed; that SNG merely tells us that SIGCOV is likely to exist. The probable existence of sources is not enough, they actually need to be presented here and at least one needs to be added to the article per NSPORTS. The obituary is routine and not sufficient to meet SIGCOV. I propose draftification instead of outright deletion to give folks time to add these sources so that the article might be saved. –dlthewave ☎ 12:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever opinion you might be of about other things, a Wisden obituary is not in any way routine. They don't give them away in any sense and tonnes of well known players don't get one. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "routine" wasn't the right word, but that very short obituary really isn't the type of in-depth writing that would contribute to SIGCOV. The fact that Wisden is selective about who gets an obituary doesn't mean that the person is necessarily notable by Wikipedia's standards. Again, we need SIGCOV sourcing to be present in the article in order to keep it per WP:SPORTBASIC. –dlthewave ☎ 15:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a jolly good indicator that much more writing about the person is likely to exist though - because of the selective nature. I mean, if we really have to have any form of sports notability guideline at all - and I'm not at all sure that any of them serve any practical purpose at all right now - then "got a Wisden obituary" is probably about the level to have them at. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I !voted to draftify instead of delete so that sources can eventually be added if they are found. We do in fact have a sports notability guideline and it doesn't mention Wisden obituaries or anything similar; you might consider opening an RfC if you'd like to add this, however it would be on a "sources are likely to exist" basis. The fact is that our guidelines don't presume notability in situations like this, and for sports figures community consensus is that sources actually have to be found and added to the article. This wouldn't even pass the AfC process as is. –dlthewave ☎ 22:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more participation needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep per Blue Square Thing: if a high probability exists of additional sources that can solidify notability, it's better to work on the article rather than delete it. That seems to be the case here. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per Dlthewave. A three-sentence obituary is just not SIGCOV no matter who wrote it. If it's truly "indicative" of further sources existing, then six months of incubation should be sufficient to find it. NSPORT is very clear that a source of SIGCOV must be in the article, and since that is not forthcoming the article currently fails our guidelines and should not be kept in mainspace. JoelleJay (talk) 06:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And frankly, that goes against WP:NEXIST, which should take precedence. StAnselm (talk) 04:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify I have to agree with Dlthewave and JoelleJay. In its current form, the article does not pass the guidelines and is very limited. However, other users have insisted that offline coverage and non-English language coverage is likely to exist, which I do not doubt. Draftify will give users time to find, improve and expand the article, and if necessary, we can review the article again at some point in the future. Unfortunately, if it isn’t in the article and is only likely to exist, we cannot keep the article going forward, but Draftify will give users time to save the article. Fats40boy11 (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Wisden entry indicates that notability is possible, however the sources don't currently establish that WP:NBIO is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:58, 31 July 2022 (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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Taaf Sahib

Al-Taaf Sahib (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Care to provide some basis for that verdict? -The Gnome (talk) 11:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Alvaldi's and The Gnome's analyses are spot-on. And obviously the OFC is not independent of its membership so can't be used for notability, but even if it was, neither of those pieces would contribute to GNG as the first is like 95% quotes and the second is a press release. These types of non-independent and passing-mention sources are regularly rejected at AfD, why do editors keep bringing them up and wasting people's time?? JoelleJay (talk) 06:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources do not establish that WP:NBIO is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:16, 5 August 2022 (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. There is a fairly even split between Delete and Draftify. The CRYSTAL argument in favor of drafting does not make sense to me. If the sources appear, the page can be made into a draft. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Onama

David Onama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMMA. Never previously appeared in Sherdog's top 10, nor has he been ranked as high as top 10 by Fight Matrix, his highest is 111th ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 22:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His third UFC fight takes place today (July 9) I thought previously 3 UFC fights was sufficient for MMA fighter notability? There are tons of UFC fighter pages who have never been ranked in the top 10 of their weight classes. Keenlycurious (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 3 fight rule was changed along with other participation based criteria a couple months ago. Only fighters ranked in the top 10 by Sherdog or FightMatrix pass NMMA. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 01:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
then whomever was involved in deciding to change that rule needs to do a serious purge of MMA fighter pages....or perhaps revisit the rule...lots of valuable information going to be discarded Keenlycurious (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently this user decided to show up and create chaos within the MMA pages. There's a lot of biased nominations by him. Obviously he's hurting the WPMMA more than helping it. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 05:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I don’t get it either he’s marked hundreds of articles for deletion when pretty much everyone within the MMA wikiproject has agreed to use the old rules.
I don’t get why these articles should be deleted either, for starters it’s not like Onama is 0-3 he’s a good prospect. Very strange. (FFCETT77 (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Whether he meets NMMA is largely irrelevant here since GNG is required by NSPORT. You should be looking for SIGCOV in multiple sources if you want this article kept. JoelleJay (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Troll or vandal or just acting in bad faith? The actual WP:MMANOT guidelines are located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts/MMA_notability yet user is linking WP:NMMA which is a redirect to a stub that has never been the landing point for Wiki's MMA notability guidelines. Rules were updated recently, three fights in UFC is still enforced, but Bellator was returned to Tier1 status (never should have lost it).
  • Comment Before refering to me as a "troll" or a "vandal", I suggest you actually learn the proper guidelines. WP:MMANOT is an outdated essay, it holds no value or weight at AFD. The proper guidelines are at WP:NMMA, which was updated in March to actually remove the three fight rule (not add it back as the IP editor falsely claims) see here. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 18:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The bad faith argument stands, if not the troll comment. You've linked a discussion which barely references MMA notability whatsoever, and a vote passed months after WP:MMANOT underwent its own major overhaul. It appears the majority of those in the WP:NSPORTS realm have little to no interest in MMA itself, and few editors actually working to keep articles timely were aware your March vote even existed. The response on this page is fairly representative of that. I'm not interested in what amounts to a bunch of forum mods abusing their power. You've literally broken MMA wiki. Give yourself a golf clap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.183.92 (talk) 06:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument makes no sense. You act as if I'm the one who made the post and single handedly changed the guidelines. I didn't. And if you refuse to accept the guidelines, that's your own fault. I'm a Wikipedia editor trying to follow policy, I'm not interested in you soapboxing about how I've "broken MMA wiki", despite the fact there was a consensus (consensus meaning multiple people voted to change them)to change such guidelines. I don't know what to say to this other than take it up with the people of NSPORT, it's their problem not mine. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 18:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't "MMA wiki". If you want to contest an extremely well-advertised and well-attended global consensus on sportsperson notability go ahead and do so at VP. JoelleJay (talk) 05:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Background The notability guidelines for MMA fighters has always been discussed at WP:MMANOT and then approved at WP:NSPORT, until the tidal wave of change that removed most/all of the participation criteria at NSPORT. Papaursa (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Right now, I don't see the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Fight reporting and reporting put out by the promoting organization don't provide the necessary coverage. Right now it looks like WP:TOOSOON to say he's WP notable, but if someone wants to work on the article in draft space I'd say that's reasonable. Papaursa (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify My opinion is to draftify if anything. I think he is close to being eligible as he is picking up wins and bouts frequently and soon will be fighting in the ranks. Deletion will just cause issues if he is to be reinstated HeinzMaster (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Regarding meeting GNG, sources in the article are: 1. UFC stats: ✗ Fail, stats are not SIGCOV; 2. UFC article on Onama: ✗ Fail, UFC not independent; 3. Bloody Elbow user-contributed post: ✗ Fail, not RS; 3. MMAUK profile: Not sure. , could partially contribute if it's RS and not promo; 4. MMA DNA announcement blurb: ✗ Fail, user-submitted content, not SIGCOV; 5: Cageside Press fight recap: ✗ Fail, standard primary play-by-play account; 6: MMA Junkie: ✗ Fail, routine weigh-in report, not SIGCOV; 7: Cageside Press fight recap: ✗ Fail, see above (also not independent of other Cageside Press pieces); 8: BJPenn event recap: ✗ Fail, single sentence, not SIGCOV; 9: Eurosport routine fight announcement: ✗ Fail, not SIGCOV, and not independent from MMA DNA piece; Cageside Press withdrawal announcement: ✗ Fail, routine, not SIGCOV (and not independent of other CSP pieces); 10: Cageside Press fight announcement: ✗ Fail, see above; 11: MMA Junkie withdrawal announcement: ✗ Fail, see above; Cageside Press fight announcement: ✗ Fail, see above; Cageside Press fight recap: ✗ Fail, see above; Cageside Press fight announcement: ✗ Fail, see above; Sherdog stats: ✗ Fail, stats are not SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Due to sources analysis by JoelleJay. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Lack of significant coverage at the moment, but could easily change in months or years if he continues to win and rise in his division, which would generate more quality sources. Therefore draftify to prevent loss of potentially valuable work. Pinguinn 🐧 09:26, 7 August 2022 (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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shayana Windsor

Shayana Windsor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa. Changing suggestion to Delete, per WP:SPORTBASIC. -The Gnome (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Indeed we now need a pass of WP:GNG and we do not pass WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per @Yngvadottir:. Also, I found more sources online that show she is notable in Cayman Islands besides captaining the national team, such as 1. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I do think she passes GNG on the basis of a plethora of mentions, of which I'm assuming I didn't find some; there appear to be several Cayman Islands newspapers/news sites, with patchy archives online, and I kept being limited to full view of only one article and having to use Google cache or something. But from the details I suspect that scholarship announcement is someone else of the same name. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Passing mentions in routine sports recaps, especially in local papers, and especially for youth events, do not amount to GNG and are explicitly rejected by NSPORT. Every decent high school athlete will have a "plethora of mentions", and most will have far more extensive coverage than what we have here.
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Cayman Compass 1 Yes Yes No Routine sports recap ✘ No
CONCACAF 1 No governing sports orgs are never independent Yes ✘ No
Cayman Sports Buzz Yes Yes No half a sentence in a routine recap of a high school match ✘ No
Cay 3 sports Yes Yes No half a sentence in routine match recap ✘ No
Cayman Compass 2 Yes but note it is not independent of the other Cayman Compass coverage Yes No mention in routine match recap ✘ No
GSA stats db Yes No sports dbs are never SIGCOV ✘ No
CONCACAF 2 No Yes No ✘ No
Cayman Loop news No press release from scholarship org Yes No two sentences listing high school classes ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
JoelleJay (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 06:53, 25 July 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Sportspeople&oldid=1101979925"