Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sports

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Sports. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Sports|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

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 Sports. 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.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Sports

Women's World Chess Championship 1934 (non-FIDE)

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

This was not a world championship match. It was an informal casual match played in Amsterdam (rather than Rotterdam as suggested in the article). I've taken a look at some news sources from the time, and nothing suggests that the world title was at stake (plus, a title match of just four games is absolutely unheard of). I can't find any evidence that suggests that this was actually a match for the world championship, or one of any significance for that matter. [1] 9ninety (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 9ninety (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Muthomi

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

Not notable person; trivial mentions in media, no sigcov. Linkusyr (talk) 08:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sports, Football, Golf, and Kenya. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 09:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 10:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jahangirnagar University Swimming pool

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

Fails every notability guideline meant for man made features (Wikipedia:Notability_(geographic_features)#Artificial_features), this is just a random swimming pool in a random university, there is nothing special or significant about it. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Sports, and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete. no sources found + yeah that is completely random brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 02:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Brachy0008 No source found! What are those three ref given at the end of article. "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable,". This pool is one of oldest abandoned pool or early made artificial geographical feature. Local sources mentioned already. Though it is a stub, but notable. ~ Φαϊσάλ (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That statement only applies to current or former human settlements, not to a swimming pool! - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is not a random swimming pool. Swimming pools in Bangladeshi universities are rare and this is the only swimming pool of JNU. JNU is not some random university, it is the only full-residential university of Bangladesh, it is also one of the public universities. For its inactivity, students from the university had to go ponds for bath and many of them actually died while bathing because the ponds were deep and not safe. It was also named "dead pool" because of it was closed for people. I believe it has social importance according to the notability criteria. I guess Brachy0008 said they didn’t find source because they searched online in English. But you will find several sources in Bengali. The important sources are:

Mehedi Abedin 02:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2031 AFC Asian Cup qualification

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

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Could be redirected to 2031 AFC Asian Cup as an WP:ATD. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Asia. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the references are the AFC itself (except about 2027 not 2031) and Wikipedia. This is an event 6 years into the future with a preceding event to come before it. Given all the information is simply about the 2027 event with the belief it will be the same in 2031 it is just pure speculation. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Football. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely WP:TOOSOON. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 06:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per WP:CRYSTAL. Svartner (talk) 10:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2035 AFC Asian Cup qualification

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

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Main article for the tournament doesn't even exist yet, and this was created way too early for no apparent reason. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Asia. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just a copy of the 2031 article (seriously, that exists too?) with minor adjustments. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle: I've now nominated that page for deletion as well. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per WP:CRYSTAL. Svartner (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We need to stamp out the perceived need to create articles several years ahead of time. This is ultimately detrimental to quality. Wikipedia does not stage a contest for the first creator of a topic. Geschichte (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This event will happen ten years from now, so there may not be enough significant coverage at the moment. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to AFC Asian Cup or Delete – WP:CRYSTALBALL. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yvon Mariolle

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

Mass created article by Lugnuts. Fails WP:NSPORTS due to lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Only claim to notability is exactly the kind of participation-based notability claim based on wide-sweeping databases that WP:NSPORT2022 deprecated. Fails WP:NBOX since they were never ranked in the world-wide top ten.

Prod removed by BeannieFan11 with the comment "the source I added contains a story on him, although inaccessible - further, the Olympedia picture is captioned "Champion de France" - a national boxing champion in France absolutely would have coverage in newspapers of the day, and that a search of "'Yvon Mariolle' boxeur" still brings up passing mentions to this day indicates he is virtually certain to have been a notable figure". With the maximum respect for Beannie, a story that no-one can access in which the only thing we know is that possibly the name "Yvon Mariolle" is mentioned, is not a credible claim that significant coverage exists in this case. More is needed for a WP:NEXIST pass than pointing to a source you cannot read. If Mariolle had ever been French champion - and if this was actually something signficant enough to confer notability - this would be mentioned somewhere other than Olympedia.

Additionally the two-paragraph story about the death of Yvon Mariolle's twin brother Marcel is obviously not significant coverage of Yvon. FOARP (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Olympics, and France. FOARP (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Boxing Business article isn't a case of "there may possibly be coverage of him" – we know, for a fact, that there's coverage of him there. We know this as Google Books gives a snippet view showing it talks about him on multiple pages and one quote talks about him and says something like "Let's examine his story" – and then it goes into his background. We only get small snippets of the story, but from what we do see, it talks about how he got into the sport, how he then became French national champion in 1965 and retained his title in 1966, and then continues talking about him, but I can't read further than that. Additionally, while the story on his brother is not significant coverage of him, it does indicate his significance (translated): "Marcel was none other than the twin brother of Yvon Mariolle, another boxer from the great era of the noble art of Orléans, selected for the Olympic Games in Mexico in 1968, who had been unable to get into the ring and defend his chances because of a toothache. Marcel, on the night of March 21 to 22, joined Yvon, who had also passed away, in the paradise of champions." The story would not speak so highly of him if he was an insignificant boxer. Given that we know there was at least SIGCOV in Boxing Business, know he was multi-time French national champion, and know that he was still spoken of highly in recent years, and no French newspaper archives were searched ... this should be kept. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“No French newspaper archives were searched” - this is not true. All archives indexed by Google are searched in a Google search, and this includes the French-language publications indexed by Google. I didn’t mention it, but I also looked at Internet Archive which includes a substantial corpus of French newspapers including Paris Match, and found nothing but passing mentions. L'Equipe also have a photo archive which returns no results for Mariolle. FOARP (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search would not find any 1960s French newspapers as far as I'm aware. Mariolle seems to be a very important figure, being three-time national champion and being sent to nearly a dozen international competitions (see this, the city of Orleans writing an article about boxing, "one of the main combat sports making headlines [in France]," and it discusses a program for a fight he was in). Do you really think that not a single newspaper in France would cover their national boxing championships, even when we have sources mentioning it was "one of the main sports making the headlines"? That would be an absolutely ludicrous assumption! I looked at the Internet Archive's "substantial" collection of French newspaper archives and it returned two results from the 1970s (he was champion in the 1960s), but literally American newspapers have many more mentions of him. That the U.S. would cover France's boxing champion more than France does itself is also an insane idea. Further, here's a forum where someone recalls spending "hundreds of hours in the car listening [I presume on the radio?] to the stories of a boxer of the time ... Yvon Mariolle." We know for a fact that there's SIGCOV in Boxing Business, and he still receives passing mentions to this day, such as the story I mentioned above saying that Marcel was "none other than the brother of Yvon" and calling him one of the "champions" of the "great era" of the sport in France. I don't usually say this, but I am 100% sure he is notable. I guarantee it. This should be kept. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but you're making a mountain out of a molehill here.

"A Google search would not find any 1960s French newspapers as far as I'm aware" - Here's what you get for a search for Daniel Robin (the French Wrestler who got silver in 1968). Hits include L'Equipe and Le Monde.

"Do you really think that not a single newspaper in France would cover their national boxing championships" - Since when were passing mentions in match reports capable of sustaining notability?

"We know for a fact that there's SIGCOV in Boxing Business" - We do not in fact know this. FOARP (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Le Monde is the only source from the 1960s that Google brings up (the L'Equipe result doesn't appear to be from then). Since when were passing mentions in match reports capable of sustaining notability? – I never said that, but you seemed to be implying that the two results on the Internet Archive was everything there was to be found; let me re-phrase it: Do you really think that not a single newspaper in France would cover their national boxing championships more than a passing mention, when reliable sources state that it was very frequently featured in the headlines? As for Boxing Business, the odds of a multi-page story on him that says 'let's examine his story' and then goes on about details such as how he started boxing, how he won national championships, then continuing with more details on his boxing career, not being significant coverage is next to nil. We need to use common sense. When very few relevant sources were searched, we know there is a source that is virtually certain to be significant coverage, we know that he was very highly accomplished and boxing was a headline-level of importance topic, we know he still to this day gets mentions as a "champion" from the "great era" of French boxing, and even have people describing having listened to "hundreds" of hours of some type of coverage of him, everything points to him having been a notable boxer. This is ridiculous. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think that not a single newspaper in France would cover their national boxing championships more than a passing mention - whether they would or not is irrelevant. The article is not about the championship. Also, whilst we're at it, it's worth noting that Boxing Business appears to have been a highly-opinionated book that included an entire chapter praising the Soviet Union (that's a review from a French newspaper, archived by Google), so I'm not so sure about it being an entirely reliable source. Le Monde apparently has quite good archives covering the 1960's and 70's, all indexed by Google, but they don't mention Yvon Mariolle. FOARP (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The book was written by Roland Passevant [fr], a notable sports and political journalist who worked for Agence France-Presse and was the head sports editor for multiple newspapers, as well as a recipient of the Legion of Honour. The review you cite notes how Passevant was courageous and informed ... [The book an] impressive document always, unbearable sometimes; [the] testimony of a man rich in journalistic experience ... Clearly, Roland Passevant knows what he is talking about and spares no one... – and the entire chapter praising the Soviet Union is, according to the source, rather praising Soviet boxing. I don't see why it wouldn't be reliable. Naturally, an in-depth article talking about the championship would have to talk about the champion; it'd be shocking for anyone to read a headline feature story about a sports championship and find that there's no content at all about the winner! Yes, Le Monde – one single newspaper – may be archived; but there were dozens if not hundreds of newspapers that could have covered him. Common sense would indicate that there's further coverage when we already have one piece of SIGCOV and very few of the sources from the time are accessible, given that we know the sport was often in the headlines and he was among the best. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Boxing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is about a boxer who lost his first, and only, bout at the Olympics. He appears to fail WP:ANYBIO and definitely fails WP:NBOX. I can't tell if Boxing Business provides significant independent coverage but even if it did WP:GNG is generally assumed to require multiple sources. I'm not voting to delete in the hopes that additional sources can be found. If they are, please let me know so I can look at them. Papaursa (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of North American ski resorts

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

Almost all of the data is cribbed from self-published sources, i.e. the websites of the various ski areas. They are notorious for inflating their statistics. I pointed this out almost four years ago and placed a "self-published" tag on the page, but nothing has improved in the intervening time. Finding good, solid, independent, reliable sources for these numbers is difficult if not impossible. Moreover, the ticket price has not been updated in five years and is off by almost a factor of two in some cases - it's an impossible maintenance task to keep that column up to date. The rest of it mostly reiterates marketing fluff.

See my comment on the talk page from Mar 2020: Talk:Comparison_of_North_American_ski_resorts#Self-published_tag Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Lists, and North America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. There's already a tree of categories for ski resorts, don't need more than that. And as OP said the data reliability is a big question mark. Wizmut (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH. Srijanx22 (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Statististics can easily be updated with new information in terms of the ticket price. As for categories such as "skiable acreage" and "vertical drop", I agree that the article should have original research, but there really isn't a practical way, although not impossible, to find that information other than from the resort themselves (which is dubious but the most accurate information we have). However, the amount of trails, ski lifts, and annual snowfall is easily verifiable information that is publicly accessible. I also do not believe this article acts as a WP:DIRECTORY, and provides encyclopedic value, thus need not be deleted. I could also see this article getting merged with List of ski areas and resorts in the United States. Googoogootoo (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2006 European Juveniles Baseball Championship

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

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

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

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

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

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

The main article was deleted deleted in October for failing WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. It does not appear that the yearly editions of this tournament pass those either as they rely heavily on a single primary source. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Baseball, Europe, and Czech Republic. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per deletion discussion of the 'parent page' linked in the rationale, as well as the fact these articles are just regurgitations of the sources published by the organisation running said tournament. No other sources indicates there is insufficient notability. C 679 21:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1927 U.S. Figure Skating Championships

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Non-notable figure skating competitions. I had attempted to redirect these articles to U.S. Figure Skating Championships, as has been done with literally hundreds of similar articles over the past month, but was reverted on the grounds that "This page have [sic] a reference source". As if that was the problem. Since the medalists were the only information supported by what sources I could access, I added those sources to the parent article. Recommend deletion or forced redirect back to U.S. Figure Skating Championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Skating. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: All pages have a references source, it's not non-notable. If you think it's not enough, you can add it more. The past year was so far and it need more time find the sources. Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect: There's no need for an individual page for each year; the information can be better presented on a single page for the recurring event as a whole. Espatie (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I have already merged what little there was of value. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Espatie: No need for an individual page for each year, what does it means? If you agree that, all pages should be redirect. Stevencocoboy (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what it says: there is no need for a separate article for every year of this event. One page for the event as a whole, with a combined table of results is sufficient Espatie (talk) 10:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Mccapra (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a look at 1966, there seems to have been plenty of coverage of the event. E.g. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that the 1966 article should be kept, I'm sure the AFD closer can separate it out from the others. I trust your judgment. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are sources for 1924 too: [7][8][9][10][11][12]. Also, pages 22 to 29 of the "Skating magazine" source listed in the article are about the 1924 event. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OGA Golf Course

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

This golf course has gotten a few brief mentions in some news articles, but none of them have gone into enough depth to justify its notability. Fails GNG. Badbluebus (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Sports, Golf, United States of America, and Oregon. Badbluebus (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Engineered constructs says:
Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.

Sources
1. Wallach, Jeff (2004). Best Places to Golf Northwest: British Columbia to Northern Utah, the Western Rockies to the Pacific. Seattle: Sasquatch Books. pp. 31–32. ISBN 978-1-57061-395-1. Retrieved 2025-01-17 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "The Oregon Golf Association (OGA) Members Course at Tukwila may have one of the longest names around, but it's also long on great golf. Bill Robinson stitched together this tapestry of holes in Woodburn, forty minutes south of Portland. The fabric of Bentgrass stretches 6,650 from the longest of four sets of tees and boasts a couple of reachable (and especially good) par 5s, a huge double green at nine and eighteen, and some of the finest putting surfaces in the region. Water, wicked bunkers, and pesky woods are also on the menu of this stupendous walking course. The holes here are pure and clever. The OGA course opens with an inviting slight dog right followed by the opposite dog, but this one has more bite—in the form of a hazelnut orchard right, a pond left, and a tree and bunkers that could come into play. Number four is a complex 516 yards: Blind tee shots run down toward a ravine. The second shot climbs back uphill between bunkers and forest and over the chasm to a plateau green. A second par 5 follows. The back side contains the best par 3 on the course, a volatile 172 yards that slope toward water. ..."
2. Robinson, Bob (1996-05-01). "New OGA Members Course draws rave reviews". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2025-01-17. Retrieved 2025-01-17 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "The opening of the course's second nine holes in late April marked a milestone—the accomplishment of the OGA's 20-year dream. ... The OGA isn't finished. A clubhouse is in the long-range planning stages to replace the current temporary building. But the major goal—the public golf course—finally is a reality. ... In effect, the OGA Members Course is owned by the nearly 50,000 members of the OGA from 154 member clubs in Oregon and Southwest Washington. The members paid the dues that made the project possible. The idea began in the mid-1970s, when the OGA started having difficulty securing courses for its tournaments. ... In 1976, the OGA began charging each member $1 in annual dues to go into a course acquisition and usage fund. Later, the charge was raised to $2 per member and, finally, $5 when a five-year capital assessment went into effect. Still, as late as 1993, the project was no sure thing. The OGA had $1.2 million in its fund at the time."
3. Petshow, Joe (1994-07-31). "OGA to open its course. The first nine holes open for public play on Tuesday". Statesman Journal. Archived from the original on 2025-01-17. Retrieved 2025-01-17 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "The Oregon Golf Association's new Members' Course faces a tough task in the days ahead. Keeping 50.000 shareholders happy. ... Nine holes of the course will open to the public on Tuesday. A driving range and putting green opened earlier this year. A second nine holes is scheduled to be completed in 1996. The clubhouse will be the site of the OGA's offices and also will house a golf museum. ... The course is located at Tukwila, a new housing development in north Woodburn. The Tukwila partners donated 170 acres. ... The Members' Course was designed by Bill Robinson, who recently renovated Willamette Valley Country Club in Canby and Bend Country Club. The course flows through a filbert orchard and has six lakes, three wetlands and 31 sand bunkers. ... Another feature is an 18,000-square-foot green, which will be used for the ninth and the 18th holes after the second nine is built. Until then, it will serve as the ninth green. The course also has a 12,000-square- foot putting green, and a driving range with an 80-yard wide tee area, three flag placements and seven targets."
4. Wallach, Jeff (2013-09-25). "The Off-Trail Oregon Golf Trip". Links. Archived from the original on 2025-01-17. Retrieved 2025-01-17.
  This is the same author as Wallach 2004. The article notes: "As you head inland over the Coast Range to the lush Willamette Valley, try your best to turn a cold shoulder to Pumpkin Ridge Golf Club and instead set your sights on the OGA Golf Course. Unlike its name, the course is anything but unwieldy. Located half an hour south of Portland, this Bill Robinson layout boasts a couple of reachable par 5s, a huge double green at Nos. 9 and 18, and some of the finest putting surfaces in the region. The layout opens with two dogleg—No. 1 bends slightly right while No. 2 turns left. The second has more bite, with a hazelnut orchard right, a pond left, and a tree and bunkers that could come into play as one approaches the green. The 4th hole is a complex 516 yards, beginning with a blind tee shot that runs toward a ravine. The second shot climbs back uphill between bunkers and through forest, over a chasm to a plateau green."
5. Petshow, Joe (1993-09-01). "Officials plan for OGA course". Statesman Journal. Archived from the original on 2025-01-17. Retrieved 2025-01-17 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Golf nuts should enjoy the future home of the Oregon Golf Association. The OGA's planned 18-hole public course and an Oregon Golf Hall of Fame is situated north of Woodburn on farmland that includes a filbert orchard. The association on Tuesday officially unveiled the plans for the course, under construction east of Boones Ferry Road and north of Highway 214. The scheduled opening for the first nine holes is May 1994. ... The first phase of construction includes nine golf holes, a driving range, maintenance facility and temporary clubhouse. The cost for the first phase is approximately $1.7 million. ... The course, which includes a wetlands area and views of Mount Hood, will be within the Tukwila real estate development. The 170 acres of land for the golf course was donated to the OGA."
6. Less significant coverage:
  1. Golf Digest (2006). Carney, Bob (ed.). OGA Golf Course (7 ed.). New York: Fodor's. p. 534. ISBN 978-1-4000-1629-7. ISSN 1534-1356. Retrieved 2025-01-17 – via Internet Archive.
    The article notes: "★★★★1⁄2 OGA GOLF COURSE. PU-2850 Hazelnut Dr., Woodburn, 97071, 503-981-6105. Web: ogagolfcourse.com. Facility Holes: 18. Opened: 1996. Architect: William Robinson. Yards: 6,650/5,498. Par: 72/72. Course Rating: 71.7/71.8. Slope: 131/128. Green Fee: $26/$48. Cart Fee: $25 per cart. Cards: MasterCard, Visa, Discover. Discounts: Weekdays, twilight, seniors, juniors. Walking: Unrestricted walking. Walkability: 2. Season: Year-round. High: Apr.-Nov. Tee Times: Call 5 days in advance. Notes: Range (grass, mat). Comments: This "must-play course" has the "best condition and layout in the state." It has "soft lines, big greens and tough pins." The "front nine, which winds through hazelnut trees our readers tell us, is more interesting and challenging than the "boring" back."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow OGA Golf Course to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 12:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Menlo Oaks men's volleyball team

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

College volleyball season with no indication of notability. The sources are all either trivial mentions, at least 1.5 years old, or don't mention the team at all. An online search doesn't yield any WP:SIGCOV either. JTtheOG (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and California. JTtheOG (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maybe the team itself warrants an article but even that is not clearly established. I struggle to come up with a scenario where a college sports team's single season warrants a dedicated article. This season does not come close to notability. The content is largely promotional and the handful of references are weak and often quite old. An extreme example is the list of TV announcers which includes as a reference for one of the announcers an article from 2007. An 18 year old article that doesn't mention Menlo Oaks is neither reliable nor relevant to this team's 2025 season.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 04:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it seems like the consensus is that Division I football, basketball, volleyball (often) and hockey (sometimes) seasons generally have notability and therefore have their own article on wikipedia. Yes, Menlo is normally a Div II program, but they are competing in a combination conference agaisn't Div one teams who either already have a 2025 season article (i.e. BYU), or have had season articles in the past (USC, UCLA, Grand Canyon, etc.). Agree that some of the references aren't great, but those can be removed to bring the structure of the article in line with other college volleyball season articles. Epluribusunumyall (talk)
Epluribusunumyall (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:NSEASONS, there is no such presumed notability. Significant coverage must be shown to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Volleyball-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 05:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Spanish Open (table tennis)

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

I am struggling to find any WP:SIGCOV for this table tennis competition after using various search terms in English and Spanish. I suggest a redirect or merge to 2019 ITTF Challenge Series unless better sourcing can be located. JTtheOG (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Spain. JTtheOG (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if other editors support a Redirect or Merge here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2019 North American Open (table tennis)

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

I am struggling to find enough in-depth coverage of this competition to meet WP:GNG. There is this piece from ButterflyOnline, a Japanese table tennis equipment distributor, but not much else other than a few photo galleries (1, 2, 3). I suggest a redirect or merge to 2019 ITTF Challenge Series. JTtheOG (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Canada. JTtheOG (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hoping for more opinions on whether or not this article should be Redirected or Merged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cleethorpes Town F.C. (1901)

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

Local club without significant, non-routine coverage. All we have are match reports, mostly from very local sources, which are primary sources, not the required secondary sources needed to meet WP:GNG. Fram (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Football, and England. Fram (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: am biased as I created it, but helps to avoid confusion with other Cleethorpses, and they did get quite deep in the FA qualifying rounds.

Unfortunately am stuck with local sources because the British Newspaper Archive is no longer available to editors. There are long-standing stub pages extant for clubs of a similar stamp who did not have such good Cup runs. We probably need a definition of Notable for football, but note that the current Cleethorpes Town has not lasted as long a period as this one, plays at a lower level, and has been less successful in the FA Cup. Would it not be recency bias to have the current one but not a predecessor? In Vitrio (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Fram (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's relevant in this case - other stuff is evidence that a long run of FA Cup qualifying appearances has long been considered Notable and it does not seem to have been controversial. Especially as the club's run in 1919–20 made them one of the last 90 clubs in the competition, i.e. equivalent of Second Round Proper nowadays. There is not a page for the 1919–20 Qualifying Rounds yet, but in the 1920–21 FA Cup qualifying rounds page, every club reaching that particular stage has its own entry, so if notable in 1920, why not 1919? In Vitrio (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having an article doesn't necessarily mean being notable, just that perhaps no one has checked thoroughly. That's what "otherstuffexists" basically means, you are arguing that other articles are notable or that other similar articles about less notable subjects exist, but you aren't arguing how you will resolve the lack of secondary sources which means that this topic doesn't meet WP:GNG. We judge articles on AfD based on policies and guidelines, not on other articles. Fram (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that in EVERY other instance, for a decade, teams which have reached this stage have either been accepted as Notable or nobody has even thought to challenge their notability. Hence all their pages are still standing. I don't get why the exception for this one side. That I cannot find more sources is more down to my access than anything else, and given a start I'd think others could find more. In Vitrio (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – It has three local newspapers in addition to at least two books of specialized literature covering the content. Considering the club existed until the late 1940s, isn't that enough? Svartner (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The books are about Grimsby Town FC, not about Cleethorpes FC. Fram (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't really see any problem with the sourcing as a quick search of the British Newspaper Archives brings up more than just local coverage and merging this into one of the other Cleethorpes Town articles doesn't really make sense, but at worst merge to the Cleethorpes Town F.C. (1884) article. SportingFlyer T·C 06:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you add some of the non-local coverage please? Giant Snowman 08:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't have access to the British Newspaper Archive apart from the search. Just trying to confirm it's notable, not improve it. SportingFlyer T·C 23:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of the "vibes of notability" comment in the relist - sources do exist and can be found, I just don't have access. SportingFlyer T·C 18:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep—If additional sources, as described above can be added to the article, I'll support keeping it more wholeheartedly. Anwegmann (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We seem to be operating on the vibes of notability more than the kinds of keep !votes that would establish consensus with this level of participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Fram. Could you describe the content to me in the first two sources: "Sport & play" and "The football field". I'm not expecting much from the first, as this looks like it would be nothing more than an announcement, but otherwise I'd be surprised if the second source, citing the club's change of name, hasn't included some coverage of the past few years of the club's history. You have explicitly stated there is only match reports, so which matches are these first two sources reporting on? Could you also explain to me how these WP:TIER3 sources are primary, rather than secondary sources that lack independence from the subject? If these are indeed secondary sources, what is the involvement with the subject, based on the content, that excludes them from SIGCOV? I'm otherwise torn on this, at present in the article there is almost certainly not enough for GNG (although, unable to verify this), and from searching through some books there was only passing coverage. I'd expect a lot more coverage from a club in involved in the early history of English football, but I also don't have access to BNA either. CNC (talk) 13:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PRIMARY: "For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources." Things like match reports are eyewitness accounts of a very recent event, not what is described in WP:SECONDARY: "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources."- I have no direct access to the sources here, but they look like match reports or recent sporting news overviews, not indepth secondary sources about the club and its history. In Vitrio (article creator) is rather thorough (which is a good thing), if the second source had more indepth info and background about the first few years of the club beyond the namechange, I'm sure it would have been included. Fram (talk) 08:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Have now been able to see the relevant snippet of the source about the name change[13], and it's a small local announcement about the playing field having sustained damage, and the namechange is just a parenthesis: "Cleethorpes Town (late St. Peter's) Football Club", so no, it has no coverage at all of the club's history. Fram (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- One issue is you are not going to get ANY secondary sources for (within a rounding error) ANY football club in the first part of the 20th century. There was no football literature outside of the football annuals, which are not readily available. And any retrospecitves or club profiles are only going to be in newspapers. The British Library's Football Compendium lists only FIFTEEN general works for the first half of the 20th century - and that includes a thesis, two general sport books with chapters on football, and two books on football in PoW camps in World War 1. Even the biggest club of the 1930s (Arsenal) did not have a single book about them in period.
But it goes back again to the point I made about Notability and recency bias. You're not going to get secondary sources about teams that are unambiguously Notable because there's not going to be a market. The wikipedia guidelines on sources simply do not work going this far back because the media environment was very different. And LITERALLY EVERY OTHER CLUB at this stage in the competition in this period has an entry, some up for a decade, and have NEVER been challenged. I question why Fram is only challenging this particular one. Not the first time Fram has challenged one of the articles I've put up - and nobody else ever has. In Vitrio (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"You're not going to get secondary sources about teams that are unambiguously Notable": if you don't have secondary sources, then they are unambiguously not notable, as it states there (bold in original): "Sources" should be secondary sources. Fram (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In which case you're wiping out ALL of football before the Second World War. Unless you count the annuals and I don't have access to them. It took until about 2018 for anyone to provide a decent secondary source for the Clapham Rovers and they were FA Cup winners. There still are none for Scottish Cup finalists like Renton or Clydesdale.

The very fact that football does not have a notability guideline shows that strict policy does not work. Otherwise it would have been a piece of cake to draft one up. One has to take it in context and in this context it is bizarre to single out one club. You haven't explained why you are only nominating this one and not every other, more obscure, club whose article has been around for a decade (I give FC Alemannia 1897 Karlsruhe or Colne Town as examples). Why is THIS ONE not Notable but the others ARE? The point about others being obviously Notable is that it encourages research into those overlooked. You're seeking to stop all that. I don't get it.

And indeed note the paradox. If this one gets deleted, why not nominate every single other club who got to the last 90 of the Cup? Because a fortiori they are not Notable either. But I've got all the drafts, so I could approach a friendly publisher, put out a book, and then there is a secondary source. Bingo. It's not logical to decree that e.g. W.O.A.C. are Notable because someone has put them in a book but Stafford Road are not because nobody has yet. They were both the same stature and notoriety in period. In Vitrio (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's how notability on Wikipedia works. If X gets the secondary sources, but equally important or more so Y doesn't, then X is notable and Y isn't. We aren't here to second-guess the sources and why they choose to include one and exclude the other, and we aren't here to write histories for subjects no reliable source so far has bothered to do this. If this means unequal treatment or your favourite subject not getting a Wikipedia article, then so be it. Fram (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
People HAVE written about Cleethorpes Town in the context of individual players' careers. There may be other sources of which I am unaware and people might use those to add in. It's not a favourite subject, by the way, never even been to Cleethorpes, but it was stumbling across something that made me realize that this was a different club from the other two Cleethorpes Towns, so needed to be split out, and having the page avoids confusion. Especially given the 1901 iteration did get to the equivalent of the FA Cup second round. As I've said, there are many clubs with less good sources and records whose pages have been up for years and nobody has challenged them. Because nobody doubts their Notability. In Vitrio (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sports-related Proposed Deletion nominations

Sports-related Categories for discussion

none at present

American football

Jeremy Collins

AfDs for this article:

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

This person may or may not have significant coverage verified by reliable sources. Nonetheless, being eliminated early in The Traitors (American TV series) season 3 and appearing in Survivor a few times doesn't make him more than known for just winning Survivor once. (I don't think his Price Is Right appearance improves much, does it?) Per WP:GNG, primary sources don't count as verification of this person's notabillity. This EW interview and Men's Journal interview (posing as an article in prose format) or this "article" featuring full quotes by the article subject are primary sources. So is this NBC article. This CBS article briefly mentions him as winner of Cambodia season.

When I nominated this article for the first time, I proposed numerous suggestions, which may have led to "no consensus" result. This time, I would definitely like this article to be redirected to Survivor: Cambodia. The alternative targets List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants and Survivor: San Juan Del Sur (his debut season) are nice, but his status as the Cambodia winner is IMO stronger than his other TV appearances. Even an article about a returnee was redirected to Survivor: Blood vs. Water per another AFD discussion.

If WP:BLP1E doesn't apply, then how about WP:BIO1E, WP:PAGEDECIDE, WP:NBASIC, and/or WP:BIOSPECIAL? (Failing NBASIC but meeting WP:NACTOR still doesn't make him an exception, IMO.) George Ho (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, American football, and Massachusetts. George Ho (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs to match all 3 critiera of WP:BLP1E for it to apply he does not even meet the first 2 so you can't really apply that further more the "article that got redirected" while it did happen it was the result of a afd that wasn't attended by a single editor so it's a poor comparison yes his Survivor tenure is the most notable part but he is know for being in 2 seasons furthmore until very recently every Survivor winner had a page so this goes against precedence as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwew345t (talk • contribs) 15:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plus he won once but the show he won and was Fetruared on multiple times is also one of the most watched shows in the world has lasted more then 40 seasons and has spawned multiple spin offs across the globe im not sure how that cant possibly NOT make him notable it seems like the nominater while good intentiond has severley ignored the impact and popularity of the show Wwew345t (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The nominaters argument seems to be =wining Survivor =not notable while simultaneously ignoring that survivor is one of the most watched shows in the world the sources cover the article plenty Wwew345t (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing the article needs is extra sources Wwew345t (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://decider.com/2025/01/19/jeremy-collins-the-traitors/ shows that his Traitors appearance also got coverage Wwew345t (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you basing his notability on the show's own popularity? WP:INHERENT (essay) suggests we avoid one's notability based on another's. Decider.com is part of New York Post, which is considered "generally unreliable" per WP:NYPOST. WP:DECIDER somehow considers Decider.com marginally reliable but cautions using it.

Reading it, the "article" in disguise is just an interview, meaning I have to treat the source as a primary source, which still doesn't verify his notability.

What about other rules I provided if you still think BLP1E doesn't apply? George Ho (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument of WP:INHERENT would be more effective if he was some random contestant who got out early but he wasnt he pplayed 3 times all 3 times he made it to rhe merge section of the game this qualifes him for [[WP:NACTOR]] that was why I brought up the show Wwew345t (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://entertainmentnow.com/news/jeremy-collins-survivor/ is a source and https://www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/pictures/survivor-winners-through-the-years-where-are-they-now/ mentions not only his Survivor appearances but also his traitors appearance this https://thedirect.com/article/the-traitors-season-3-us-cast-contestants-peacock-photos-bios mentions his appearance on the traitors while also going a little bit in detail of what he did in his 3rd Survivor season I'll post some more links later but there's clearly substantial coverage establishing notabillity Wwew345t (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.monstersandcritics.com/tv/reality-tv/who-is-jeremy-collins-from-the-traitors-us-3-cast/ also describes his appearances on survivor and even brings up the fact that he was notable enough to be voted into the season he eventually won https://www.wickedlocal.com/story/entertainment/2025/01/09/traitors-season-3-will-jeremy-collins-be-a-traitor/77572114007/ while I admittedly am not sure if this counts as primary or secondary since it mentions a old interview he did this also covers his traitors appearance and why he was casted .Wwew345t (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thats 4 non primary sources and i could probably find more sufficient to say this article like many othet winner articles that shouldnt have been deleted passes BASIC and GNG Wwew345t (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Entertainment Now website belongs to Heavy Inc., which aggregates news from other sources, like social media ones. This source takes info from Twitter (now called "X.com") and Instagram and interviews disguised as "articles". I'd caution using the source per WP:HEAVY.COM if I were you. Same for Us Weekly (WP:RSP#Us Weekly).

The Direct article was just previewing cast (including him) and the third season. Unconvinced that it's the indicator of this person's notability, despite brief description of his Survivor gameplay. Also unconvinced that Monsters and Critics is highly reputable (past RSN discussion). Wicked Local source republishes a USA Today "article" that primarily advertises (or hypes up) Collins's Traitor appearance, despite detailing his profile. George Ho (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The monters and critcs discussion is severely outdated it was almost 13 years ago Wwew345t (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And your dismissing the wicked article for "hyping up his traitors appearance" despite you making a claim that there were no sources that covered it Wwew345t (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wasnt the whole point of the afd because you only thought that the soucres only covered his cambodia win? The wicked local article is a secondary source and is primarily about the tratiors apprerance Wwew345t (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The USA Today article doesn't mention his elimination from The Traitors. This "article" resembles a pre-premiere press release, IMO.

Wasnt the whole point of the afd because you only thought that the soucres only covered his cambodia win? How about "primarily" instead? Also, I don't mind other reliable sources verifying his notability, but we still have to be cautious about how sources cover him. George Ho (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the sources willb primarily cover the win as that is his most notable accivemnt however he wouldn't have been casted in said season at all if his first appearance wasnt notable at all i mean the season was "second chance" then his win had to have been notable ennoigh to have him invited again to another season they dont iust let anyone come back and then he would have had to have been a notable enough survivor player to have been invited to the traitors youll note that most other survivor players who have shown up for the traitors also have pages even if they didnt win a season of survivor (like cirie fields) basically what i mean is you dont come back multiple times including in a all winners season if you werent already a notable player Wwew345t (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He wasnt just some guy who showd up in one season got out and thats it he played 3 times never finishing below 10th Wwew345t (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Moana Marie Nunes

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

Subject is only notable due to her marriage with Antonio Sabàto Jr. - see WP:INVALIDBIO. Martey (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Entertainment. Martey (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree with the comment on her notability tied to her husband. The only section that has sourcing is her Personal life. The career section is totally not sourced, but that section shows her notability. — Maile (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Advertising, Beauty pageants, American football, California, Hawaii, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Confused. This person is clearly a big celebrity, but she doesn't have a lot of coverage in mainstream media, leading me to wonder why she's gotten so little coverage, at least from what I see on Googling, from them compared to what's in the article. Has there been a blacklist? Is she just famous for being famous? What's going on? I'm genuinely interested in an answer, so please ping me. Bearian (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cayden Lee

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of this college football player to meet WP:GNG. There is this routine story on his college choice and a couple mentions here. Both are by the same author from The Clarion-Ledger, so they would count as one source even if they were SIGCOV. There are also pieces from team-specific blogs written by non-notable sportswriters such as this piece by a writing intern from Ole Miss Rebels on SI, this piece by a longtime team blogger from The Ole Miss Spirit, or this piece by an Ole Miss senior from The Rebel Walk. JTtheOG (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, Georgia (U.S. state), and Mississippi. JTtheOG (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I kind of expected more coverage, since he seems to have had decent stats so far for Ole Miss (a big program). However, he is still young (only a sophomore) and it seems he's poised to be Ole Miss's top receiver next year (per this, albeit a FanSided blog), so there will almost certainly be more coverage of him in the near future. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. 57 catches for almost 900 yards and two tuddys is not a bad year at all, especially in the SEC. I was surprised as well. JTtheOG (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's modern sports journalism for you. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Like others, I was surprised that I couldn't find more coverage about the subject, but that is the way it goes sometimes. Draftify this for the time being as there should be more coverage at some point, it just isn't here now. Let'srun (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. 900 receiving yards for Lee in 2024 at a major progam. That would make him a star at most programs, but Tre Harris is the Rebels No. 1 receiver and probably dominated the coverage. I did find some coverage for Lee and would expect there to be more. See [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. Cbl62 (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one I found. Part of it is paywalled but it looks like SIGCOV from the part I can see. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 02:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the full version, which is probably SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NCAA Division II football win–loss records

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

Subject does not appear to have the requisite coverage to meet the WP:NLIST, as the only source is from the NCAA and a cursory search turned up no non-database sources. Article was undeleted at REFUND after it was deleted at PROD but there has been no sources added since. Let'srun (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BUNDLE, I'm nominating the following article for deletion due to the same reason

Let'srun (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. They didn't event get all the D3 teams. Smh. Conyo14 (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Conyo. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:NLIST, "one accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". NCAA DII & DIII schools are often discussed as a group by reliable sources, and the schools themselves and NCAA D2/D3 are all independently notable. Not sure why WP:NOTSTATS was mentioned, it fairly clearly does not apply here. glman (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Glman: You are correct that NCAA DII & DIII schools are often discussed as a group by reliable sources, but to me that is a justification for List of NCAA Division II football programs and List of NCAA Division III football programs, not this article. From what I understood, NOTSTATS is relevant here because this could be considered an "excessive listing of unexplained statistics"; the topic of this list is not explicitly stated in prose in the article at all (however obvious it may be from the title of the article, the title of the table, or the contents of the table itself), and the list is not given any context. The numbers are just laid out with nothing added to make it more valuable than some database source website somewhere. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the fact that the DIII list contains only 20 teams (and the No. 1 ranked team is a school that has apparently played a whopping one game) sort of undermines the "group or set" argument since the vast majority of said group is absent from the list. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure win–loss records are excessive or confusing. Nationwide opinion polling for the 2012 United States presidential election is the example given at NOTSTATS that was moved to its own article. Also, MOS:AVOIDBOLD says "If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the first sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it." Thanks, ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that they are not confusing, just that the wording of NOTSTATS seems to agree with the state of this article. The statistics listed in this article are, indeed, unexplained, and they're given no context or background information, which is not the case for the polling article you linked. I have no issue with the fact that there's no bold text at the start of the article, my issue is the total lack of context whatsoever (the "lead paragraph" of each article gives no indication as to what the article is about). The whole list is sourced to a single NCAA document which was published in 2017, meaning that the list is lazily sourced (read: unsourced) at best and OR at worst. The D3 article is even worse, since its one and only source links to a table which, without other user input, displays only "No data available in table". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The list is directly sourced to the official NCAA stats list - I will add the source to the newest version, didn't realize that one was an archived copy. I'd be happy to write an opening paragraph, seems like a minor edit to preserve useful info if that's your concern.. glman (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Glman The records in the article don't even match the records in the new source. It's all still OR or just unsourced, since the "2024 record book" lists records from prior to the 2024 season. If you want the table to be sourced, there will have to be an updated record book or an individual citation for every team. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The NCAA utilizes a digital record book that is live, and can be sourced on the page. Not worth arguing over, as you will say it's WP:OR, despite the fact that the information is direct from the official source and is provided as a set. Again, if that's the issue, we can roll back the data to the record book and update once a year. Easy fix, just like the lead. glman (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A source from the NCAA would be WP:PRIMARY. Conyo14 (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue this is not the case. Primary sources would be each school itself. The NCAA is a third-party record keeper of all official records. Regardless, per WP:PRIMARY, there is not an issue using primary sources for a list like this. glman (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your first point, and per point #5 in WP:PRIMARY they can't be used as the basis for an entire article like is the case here. Let'srun (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to disagree. Frankly, I fail to see how this applies. This list is not statements of fact that could be manipulated by the opinion of a primary author, rather they are numbers - not objectionable. glman (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion - I have added brief leads to both pages and increased referencing to avoid OR concerns, will continue to do so later today. I've done minor work to the D3 page, but will update to match the full 2024 record book. glman (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also argue that, per WP:LISTPURP, these lists are valuable information sources for a notable set, which I believe adds to the justification of retention. As established, the sets - NCAA schools - are notable. None of the comments so far have indicated they disagree that the set is non-notable, and as I've shared, I'm happy to improve the lists further if additional meaningful suggestions are made. glman (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't inherented. Just because the schools are notable doesn't mean the football records are notable. Let'srun (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that's just not what the guidelines say. The set is notable, and therefore their records are notable. glman (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The set is notable, and therefore their records are notable - WP:NOTINHERITED seems to disagree. It defines "inherited notability" as the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects; it seems to me that in this case you are arguing that "something" (the records) "[qualify] for an article" because they are "associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects" (the set of teams), which is an invalid argument. It seems like I could use your same argument to justify keeping List of NCAA Division II second-string quarterbacks; such a list is obviously absurd, but it falls in line with the argument "The set [of NCAA Division II teams] is notable, and therefore their [insert category of information] are notable." PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The set you are discussing is a List of NCAA Division II institutions which is definitely notable. However, the set here is for each of their football teams' overall records. The set of records for NCAA D2 records need to have independent (not the NCAA), reliable sources. Each record can be individually sourced by a newspaper/website, though the upkeep would be pretty difficult. Currently, you are arguing that the NCAA is not a primary source, which is not true. The NCAA, each individual conference, and school maintain these records. It is up to secondary sources to validate them, to which the Division I schools are, but not II or III. Conyo14 (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A list of second-string quarterbacks would not be notable because the second-string quarterbacks are not notable. However, D2 football programs, and their records, which are inherently tied to those programs, are notable. I know we are not going to agree here, and an admin will have to parse our discussion for consensus based on policy. I'll continue to make the changes suggested here until that time! I appreciate all of our vigor in interpreting the polciies of Wikipedia. IMO, removing these articles would remove valuable, useful information about these notable subject to the detriment of the site. glman (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:USEFUL and WP:VALUABLE. Let'srun (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These were very clearly not my policy arguments; I've made those above. I'm well aware of WP:AADD. glman (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your words: IMO, removing these articles would remove valuable, useful information about these notable subject to the detriment of the site. Conyo14 (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An IP left a malformed keep comment on the talk page, just noting for the record. Thanks, ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Just following up to spare people the time: the !vote was Not everything is D1 football - those of us that attended a smaller college like the data. Not worth the click to go read it in the first place (pretty textbook WP:ILIKEIT). PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

Proposed deletions

Comment on the talk pages of the articles, not here.

None

Files proposed for deletion

None

Templates for deletion

None

Categories

None

Baseball

Articles for deletion

2006 European Juveniles Baseball Championship

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

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

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

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

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

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

The main article was deleted deleted in October for failing WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. It does not appear that the yearly editions of this tournament pass those either as they rely heavily on a single primary source. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Baseball, Europe, and Czech Republic. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per deletion discussion of the 'parent page' linked in the rationale, as well as the fact these articles are just regurgitations of the sources published by the organisation running said tournament. No other sources indicates there is insufficient notability. C 679 21:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doc Shanley

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

Pinging Yankees10. ~~I understand Yankees fans may not have as firm a grasp on policy compared to Red Sox fans account of their tendency to support an inferior team,~~ but the article still fails SPORTSCRIT. Jay Cubby 23:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Jay Cubby 23:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The SABR biography has plenty of citations [20]. Blue Jays fans laugh then the Yankees and Sox start a feud anyway.... Oaktree b (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While there was minimal sources when searching for Doc Shanley, I found plenty beyond game logs and casual mentions when searching for Harry Shanley. Would suggest a pagemove upon closure. Wizardman 23:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing and a WP:TROUT for the nominator for (1) not doing WP:BEFORE and (2) the unnecessary antagonism in the nomination. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to newspapers.com (though I ought to apply through TWL). Good catch with the sourcing. Jay Cubby 03:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article itself is underdeveloped, but the sources presented already in this AfD clearly show notability. SportingFlyer T·C 00:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Florida, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Personal attacks in nominations is not a good look for you. Spanneraol (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per SportingFlyer and others. Rlendog (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

World Baseball Classic Rules

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

Even after removing copyright violations from this page, this page fails the WP:GNG test of WP:NOT as WP:NOTHOW and WP:NOTWEBHOST. The page paraphrases the rules, duplicating them unnecessarily. The page relies entirely on primary sources; there do not appear to be reliable, independent, secondary sources discussing the WBC rules as a subject warranting encyclopedic coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Baseball rules as an WP:ATD. The rules here are really not that different from the MLB or Nippon Baseball League. Conyo14 (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What would we merge? This is basically a close paraphrase of the rules; Baseball rules is an encyclopedic treatment of the rules. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Redirect and selective merge to World Baseball Classic#Rules and restore the "rules" section that was previously in that article. This article was created as a spinoff of the WBC article, though I do not consider that to be necessary due to relatively the small size of the article (as compared to other major sporting competitions). Frank Anchor 16:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That merge proposal makes more sense, provided the editor(s) performing it avoid the close paraphrasing of the MLB website that characterizes this article. (Outright copyvios have been revdel'ed.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Basically a simple summary of the differences between WBC rules and standard baseball rules is sufficient, assuming it is properly sourced and not the close paraphrasing of the MLB website that characterizes this article. Changing my !vote to a redirect/selective merge. Frank Anchor 14:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I'm in favor of whatever merge makes the most sense. Conyo14 (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support the merge and redirect proposed by Frank Anchor. Please feel free to ping me to perform this if it is closed that way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Clearly there is consensus to merge. A little more discussion regarding the nature of the merge would be helpful. Importantly, will it merge and redirect to Baseball rules or World Baseball Classic#Rules? While you're at it, how selective should the merge be? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems like we all agreed on a selective merge that summarizes the rules but does not duplicate the entirety of the current content, which is a too-close paraphrase of the copyrighted WBC rules, and three of the four !voters agreed on a redirect to World Baseball Classic#Rules upon completion of the merger. As to how much to merge, I don't think we need to be too entirely prescriptive and Barkeep49, who has offered to execute the merger, is an experienced editor with good judgment on what would be appropriate to merge. Pinging Conyo14 and Frank Anchor since the closer apparently wants us all to be more specific than we've already been. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I am in favor of the merge by Frank, I just didn't feel a delete was necessary. I was as confused as others were about this relisting. Conyo14 (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Doczilla or another closer, I think this can now be closed. We all support Frank's suggestion of target (World Baseball Classic#Rules) and the description of how much to be merged. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doczilla I don't think the level of consensus you're seeking is necessary at AfD. If there are content issues to work out later they can be worked out through normal editorial processes, which crucially may involve editors not present at this AfD (and thus any consensus at this AfD wouldn't necessarily stop future issues). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Do not comment on these articles here. If you agree with the proposed deletion, you don't have to do anything. If you think the article merits keeping, the remove the {{prod}} template and make an effort to improve the article so that it clearly meets the notability and verifiability criteria.

Templates for discussion

Categories for discussion

Requested moves

Basketball

Shams–Woj rivalry

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

Odd that this article has remained on Wikipedia Since September 2023. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Novemberjazz 18:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Basketball, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

merge into their reespective articles. I think the SIGCOV is there, but it's not a notable enough thing to have a standalone article. I however believe that it is notable enough to be covered on each of the participants page. Themoonisacheese (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a related comment by BHC from 2023 at Talk:Shams–Woj rivalry:
While I agree that these two are purportedly rivals I don't know if it should have its own page dedicated to it, especially as they don't seem to publicly discuss it. Would love to hear other opinions
—Bagumba (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Liberty Nuban

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

Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC and WP:GNG. Only coverage I found of Nuban is routine and this was the closest I could get for any significant, in-depth coverage to estabilish notability of him. ~ Tails Wx 18:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Peterson

AfDs for this article:

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

I am unable to find any coverage of this assistant basketball coach to meet WP:GNG, other than a few sentences on team-specific blogs (1). JTtheOG (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Basketball. JTtheOG (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also couldn't find any coverage of Peterson individually. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, Georgia (U.S. state), North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Norman (basketball)

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

I am unable to find enough in-depth coverage from third-party sources to meet WP:GNG. The most I found was routine coverage like this game recap from the Grand Forks Herald or this short piece from Mid-Utah Radio. JTtheOG (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, North Dakota, and Utah. JTtheOG (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inner West Bulls

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

Redirect to NBL1 East as I am unable to find any WP:SIGCOV for this semi-pro basketball team. JTtheOG (talk) 06:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 06:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 12:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Categories

for occasional archiving

Bodybuilding

Boxing

Articles for deletion

Yvon Mariolle

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

Mass created article by Lugnuts. Fails WP:NSPORTS due to lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Only claim to notability is exactly the kind of participation-based notability claim based on wide-sweeping databases that WP:NSPORT2022 deprecated. Fails WP:NBOX since they were never ranked in the world-wide top ten.

Prod removed by BeannieFan11 with the comment "the source I added contains a story on him, although inaccessible - further, the Olympedia picture is captioned "Champion de France" - a national boxing champion in France absolutely would have coverage in newspapers of the day, and that a search of "'Yvon Mariolle' boxeur" still brings up passing mentions to this day indicates he is virtually certain to have been a notable figure". With the maximum respect for Beannie, a story that no-one can access in which the only thing we know is that possibly the name "Yvon Mariolle" is mentioned, is not a credible claim that significant coverage exists in this case. More is needed for a WP:NEXIST pass than pointing to a source you cannot read. If Mariolle had ever been French champion - and if this was actually something signficant enough to confer notability - this would be mentioned somewhere other than Olympedia.

Additionally the two-paragraph story about the death of Yvon Mariolle's twin brother Marcel is obviously not significant coverage of Yvon. FOARP (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Olympics, and France. FOARP (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Boxing Business article isn't a case of "there may possibly be coverage of him" – we know, for a fact, that there's coverage of him there. We know this as Google Books gives a snippet view showing it talks about him on multiple pages and one quote talks about him and says something like "Let's examine his story" – and then it goes into his background. We only get small snippets of the story, but from what we do see, it talks about how he got into the sport, how he then became French national champion in 1965 and retained his title in 1966, and then continues talking about him, but I can't read further than that. Additionally, while the story on his brother is not significant coverage of him, it does indicate his significance (translated): "Marcel was none other than the twin brother of Yvon Mariolle, another boxer from the great era of the noble art of Orléans, selected for the Olympic Games in Mexico in 1968, who had been unable to get into the ring and defend his chances because of a toothache. Marcel, on the night of March 21 to 22, joined Yvon, who had also passed away, in the paradise of champions." The story would not speak so highly of him if he was an insignificant boxer. Given that we know there was at least SIGCOV in Boxing Business, know he was multi-time French national champion, and know that he was still spoken of highly in recent years, and no French newspaper archives were searched ... this should be kept. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“No French newspaper archives were searched” - this is not true. All archives indexed by Google are searched in a Google search, and this includes the French-language publications indexed by Google. I didn’t mention it, but I also looked at Internet Archive which includes a substantial corpus of French newspapers including Paris Match, and found nothing but passing mentions. L'Equipe also have a photo archive which returns no results for Mariolle. FOARP (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search would not find any 1960s French newspapers as far as I'm aware. Mariolle seems to be a very important figure, being three-time national champion and being sent to nearly a dozen international competitions (see this, the city of Orleans writing an article about boxing, "one of the main combat sports making headlines [in France]," and it discusses a program for a fight he was in). Do you really think that not a single newspaper in France would cover their national boxing championships, even when we have sources mentioning it was "one of the main sports making the headlines"? That would be an absolutely ludicrous assumption! I looked at the Internet Archive's "substantial" collection of French newspaper archives and it returned two results from the 1970s (he was champion in the 1960s), but literally American newspapers have many more mentions of him. That the U.S. would cover France's boxing champion more than France does itself is also an insane idea. Further, here's a forum where someone recalls spending "hundreds of hours in the car listening [I presume on the radio?] to the stories of a boxer of the time ... Yvon Mariolle." We know for a fact that there's SIGCOV in Boxing Business, and he still receives passing mentions to this day, such as the story I mentioned above saying that Marcel was "none other than the brother of Yvon" and calling him one of the "champions" of the "great era" of the sport in France. I don't usually say this, but I am 100% sure he is notable. I guarantee it. This should be kept. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but you're making a mountain out of a molehill here.

"A Google search would not find any 1960s French newspapers as far as I'm aware" - Here's what you get for a search for Daniel Robin (the French Wrestler who got silver in 1968). Hits include L'Equipe and Le Monde.

"Do you really think that not a single newspaper in France would cover their national boxing championships" - Since when were passing mentions in match reports capable of sustaining notability?

"We know for a fact that there's SIGCOV in Boxing Business" - We do not in fact know this. FOARP (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Le Monde is the only source from the 1960s that Google brings up (the L'Equipe result doesn't appear to be from then). Since when were passing mentions in match reports capable of sustaining notability? – I never said that, but you seemed to be implying that the two results on the Internet Archive was everything there was to be found; let me re-phrase it: Do you really think that not a single newspaper in France would cover their national boxing championships more than a passing mention, when reliable sources state that it was very frequently featured in the headlines? As for Boxing Business, the odds of a multi-page story on him that says 'let's examine his story' and then goes on about details such as how he started boxing, how he won national championships, then continuing with more details on his boxing career, not being significant coverage is next to nil. We need to use common sense. When very few relevant sources were searched, we know there is a source that is virtually certain to be significant coverage, we know that he was very highly accomplished and boxing was a headline-level of importance topic, we know he still to this day gets mentions as a "champion" from the "great era" of French boxing, and even have people describing having listened to "hundreds" of hours of some type of coverage of him, everything points to him having been a notable boxer. This is ridiculous. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think that not a single newspaper in France would cover their national boxing championships more than a passing mention - whether they would or not is irrelevant. The article is not about the championship. Also, whilst we're at it, it's worth noting that Boxing Business appears to have been a highly-opinionated book that included an entire chapter praising the Soviet Union (that's a review from a French newspaper, archived by Google), so I'm not so sure about it being an entirely reliable source. Le Monde apparently has quite good archives covering the 1960's and 70's, all indexed by Google, but they don't mention Yvon Mariolle. FOARP (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The book was written by Roland Passevant [fr], a notable sports and political journalist who worked for Agence France-Presse and was the head sports editor for multiple newspapers, as well as a recipient of the Legion of Honour. The review you cite notes how Passevant was courageous and informed ... [The book an] impressive document always, unbearable sometimes; [the] testimony of a man rich in journalistic experience ... Clearly, Roland Passevant knows what he is talking about and spares no one... – and the entire chapter praising the Soviet Union is, according to the source, rather praising Soviet boxing. I don't see why it wouldn't be reliable. Naturally, an in-depth article talking about the championship would have to talk about the champion; it'd be shocking for anyone to read a headline feature story about a sports championship and find that there's no content at all about the winner! Yes, Le Monde – one single newspaper – may be archived; but there were dozens if not hundreds of newspapers that could have covered him. Common sense would indicate that there's further coverage when we already have one piece of SIGCOV and very few of the sources from the time are accessible, given that we know the sport was often in the headlines and he was among the best. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Boxing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is about a boxer who lost his first, and only, bout at the Olympics. He appears to fail WP:ANYBIO and definitely fails WP:NBOX. I can't tell if Boxing Business provides significant independent coverage but even if it did WP:GNG is generally assumed to require multiple sources. I'm not voting to delete in the hopes that additional sources can be found. If they are, please let me know so I can look at them. Papaursa (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Categories

Cricket

Articles for deletion

2028 Women's T20 World Cup

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

This page should be redirected to the Women's T20 World Cup page, as it was previously, until an editor removed the redirect and added content ([21], [22]). No WP:SIGCOV and it is WP:TOOSOON.

The same editor also created another page with a slightly different title (2028 ICC Women's T20 World Cup), which is currently under AfD ([23]). Once more sources and information become available for the 2028 event, this page could be developed and maintained as a standalone article. QEnigma talk 05:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Pakistan. QEnigma talk 05:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to Women's T20 World Cup, also noting there's already Draft:2028 Women's T20 World Cup exists. Vestrian24Bio 06:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2028 ICC Women's T20 World Cup

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

WP:TOOSOON. The 2026 edition is yet to be played. No WP:SIGCOV for this event. This article could be recreated at a later date with more information and sources. QEnigma talk 19:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. QEnigma talk 19:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete or redirect, WP:A10 duplicate of the article 2028 Women's T20 World Cup, but with ICC added. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above mentioned page (2028 Women's T20 World Cup) was a redirect until the original editor of the article in question removed the redirect and added content ([24], [25]). QEnigma talk 04:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A10 as a duplicate of 2028 Women's T20 World Cup. Vestrian24Bio 06:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Azhar Attari

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

Mass created article by Lugnuts. Clear WP:NSPORTS fail as the only source cited is the Cricinfo database. No sources cited in the Urdu Wiki article. Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE going through to the 10th page of GHits. FOARP (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Pakistan. FOARP (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This isn't someone who has played one or two matches: he played 76 FC matches and took 245 wickets. I have no doubt that there will be dozens and dozens of offline sources in Pakistani newspapers. In any case, the Cricinfo page referred to links to four articles itself. StAnselm (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSPORTS2022 deprecated claims of notability based purely on participation (i.e., “they’re notable because they participated in X matches”). None of the Cricinfo articles give Attari significant coverage - they’re all match reports where he gets a passing mention. Attari is a 21st century player and Pakistan is now a country where more than half of the population has internet access: if there was significant coverage, it would be online. FOARP (talk) 06:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NSPORT requires all sportsperson articles to cite a SIGCOV IRS source in addition to the subject meeting GNG. No such source has been identified. JoelleJay (talk) 02:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Seems rather unlikely that there would be no GNG qualifying coverage, particularly in local language sources, of someone who was an under-19 international and had a first-class career spanning more than 10 years. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are the GHits for his name in Marathi, This is Urdu. There's an Islamic scholar/priest of the same name who gets a lot of hits, but nothing but passing mentions for Attari the cricket player. As discussed above, he's playing in an era where you'd expect online coverage if any significant coverage existed. FOARP (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, it's reasonable to expect coverage exists; not everything on the Internet is easily found via Google. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage exists for the scholar/priest of the same name, who lives in the same country and is a council (shura) member in Sialkot - that is to say hardly a major public figure - and is easily locatable on Google by searching using their name: if significant coverage exists, it will be online and searchable using Google (which is the no. 1 search engine in Pakistan). Pakistan is a modern country where people use the internet the same as everywhere else nowadays.

Moreover we deprecated "participation-based" assumptions of notability in 2022. We no longer assume someone's notable just because they play a sport at a particular level. FOARP (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Bob Willis

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent sources, of the specific topic of five-wicket hauls by this specific cricketer. Not viable as a split-list because split-lists have to have stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. This appears to be a WP:SYNTH/WP:OR from primary sources. FOARP (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Cricket. FOARP (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - seems to me that this is somewhat similar to the AfD we had a while back on WG Grace, see WP:Articles for deletion/W. G. Grace's cricket career (1864 to 1870). The difference here appears to be substantive in that we are talking about a sporting achievement rather than trying to write a full autobiography. I've not yet come to a conclusion where I fall on this one but thought other contributors might appreciate seeing the other discussion. JMWt (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I feel like a proposal to delete a Featured List needs a stronger argument than this. In any case, it meets the long-agreed upon threshold of 15 fifers. StAnselm (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A stronger argument than it not meeting our most basic PAGs? FOARP (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added a couple of references to the article, establishing the significance of his fifers as captain. StAnselm (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you added here. It’s a passing mention in an article about Joe Root/Pat Cummins. Not significant coverage of Bob Willis. FOARP (talk) 06:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge necessary content to the main article. Lorstaking (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that the subject meets NLIST requirements for IRS SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 00:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Naoomal

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

I can find no independent WP:SIGCOV of this cricketer to meet WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT. The independent coverage mentions him in the context of his father, who was a notable cricketer but from whom notability cannot be WP:INHERITED. Nor does he appear to meet the standard of WP:NCRICKET of playing at the international level. Obviously he played in an era without digital coverage, so if you find qualifying sources not accessible in a BEFORE search, please ping me. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Pakistan. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian Premier League awards

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

All this stuff can be and should be included within List of Indian Premier League records and statistics - similar to every other cricket leagues. Also, this page is just WP:NOTSTATS. Vestrian24Bio 04:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Cricket, and India. Vestrian24Bio 04:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's unusual that I simply say, per nom, but in this case that applies. A redirect might be possible and might just stop this article getting re-created Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just because the IPL takes every stat is can think of an then sells someone sponsorship for an "award" for it, that doesn't mean we need this awards article. All sufficiently covered in the stats article. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The closest analog is Women's Big Bash League, the longest-standing women's T20 franchise league. Women's Big Bash League#Season summaries has a table listing the recipients of the "Most runs", "Most wickets", "Player of the Tournament", and "Young Gun" awards for each season, essentially the same as IPL's "Orange Cap", "Purple Cap", "Most Valuable Player", and "Emerging Player" awards covered in this article. IPL's Orange and Purple Caps have also received significant independent coverage in major cricket news websites, such as ESPNcricinfo. The merge target proposed by @Vestrian24Bio, List of Indian Premier League records and statistics has a different scope, focusing on all-time records, analogous to Women's Big Bash League#Statistics and records. Finally, merging to Indian Premier League#Awards is not an option here as the main IPL article is 173,624 bytes (almost twice the size of the corresponding WBBL article). I would support the removal of sections covering sponsored awards of negligible importance — I would be surprised if the Visit Saudi beyond the boundary longest six award has received much independent coverage — but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Preimage (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Preimage: Not sure how this is relevant to WBBL, but even WBBL doesn't have separate articles for this... And also ESPNcricinfo isn't a news website but a WP:ROUTINE coverage. Vestrian24Bio 12:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vestrian24Bio, you stated similar to every other cricket [league] — which is manifestly not the case. ESPNcricinfo (together with The Cricket Monthly, its longform magazine) is widely considered to be one of the top non-paywalled websites covering cricket. Even Wisden's weighted in here — admittedly, the first hit I found was an article on how cricket's long-standing focus on aggregate runs is statistically illiterate and should be replaced with Moneyball-style advanced metrics — but the point is that these awards are considered to be conventionally important. I'd support a merge into Indian Premier League if we could combine the 4/5 most important awards into a single table as the WBBL article manages to do. Merging into the records and statistics article isn't really an option though, its scope is just too different. Preimage (talk) 13:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Awards like Orange Cap, Purple Cap and MVP are all noteworthy and covered widely not only in India but outside India too: [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]. In India, any changes to the holders of these caps and leaderboards receive extensive coverage throughout the season: [33] [34] [35] [36]. In fact, the caps are physically worn on the field by their current holders over the course of the tournament, so these are actual awards with significance and not just stats. As such, merging this article with the proposed target would not be appropriate. A like-for-like comparison would be the FIFA World Cup awards article which covers awards such as Golden Ball, Golden Boot and Golden Glove. The delete voters sound a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDONTKNOWIT. Yuvaank (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF, my vote is based on this being a WP:CFORK of the stats article. I know what all these "awards" are. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except it isn't a WP:CFORK of the stats article and are actual notable awards as can be seen with the sources I presented. Your usage of double quotes for the word awards just goes to illustrate WP:IDONTKNOWIT unfortunately. Yuvaank (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, FIFA World Cup awards won't even be a proper comparison as it's an international competition as opposed to IPL which is a domestic competition. Vestrian24Bio 03:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is a domestic competition or international is besides the point. The basic premise of your nomination is that these awards are not notable and are merely stats. I presented sources from 6 different countries that prove that these are indeed awards–notable ones at that–which have received sustained coverage globally over the years. FWIW, here are some awards from domestic competitions: La Liga Awards, Premier League Golden Boot, Premier League Golden Glove, Bundesliga Awards. You also invoked WP:CONSISTENT in your nomination statement, which is a policy on article titles. Yuvaank (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERIT, individual coverage of Orange Cap and Purple Cap wouldn't make the list notable. Vestrian24Bio 01:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERIT is an essay and not a guideline/policy set in stone. The notability of the list itself is established by articles such as Scroll.in, The Indian Express, India Today, News18 and Wisden. It is seems individual articles on Indian Premier League Orange Cap and Indian Premier League Purple Cap, which were created by @Magentic Manifestations back in 2015, were merged into this list by @Vin09. I can see the reasoning behind the merge, although these two awards are likely to be notable in their own right. Yuvaank (talk) 09:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - People arguing for this topic being notable are arguing on the basis of individual items listed in it being notable, but notability is not inherited. Neither can an sub-topic inherit the notability of an over-arching topic, nor can an over-arching topic inherit the notability of sub-topics within it. Fails WP:LISTN. FOARP (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. IPL's yearly awards are presented as part of the post-match ceremony at the end of each IPL final. They are covered as a group each year in regular news coverage of the final (e.g. [37]), as well as in post-season articles like [38] (comparing ESPNcricinfo's own set of awards to the official IPL 2023 Orange Cap, Purple Cap, Player of the Final, and Player of the Tournament awards). Preimage (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, I'd appreciate it if you could also comment on the merge suggestions: the original nominator's comment All this stuff can be and should be included within List of Indian Premier League records and statistics sounds like a proposed merge (to be posted at WP:PM) rather than an AfD nomination to me. If you do consider a merge appropriate, I'd argue that Indian Premier League#Awards would be the best target (as this list was a WP:SUBARTICLE split off for reasons of length), but I'm open to other suggestions: you clearly have more policy expertise in this space than I do. Preimage (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be OK with a redirect/merge - it's verifiable content. Not sure about those sources: the first seems to be about the ceremony, the second about Cricinfo's stats. FOARP (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re: sourcing, I'm working off WP:SIGCOV, which states "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, ... [it] is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The topic of the article we are looking at is 'who won the IPL awards each season?'

The first source is titled IPL 2024 final awards and prize money: Complete list of winners including Orange Cap, Purple Cap and more. It's a beat report to inform readers 'who won stuff last night?', which starts by covering the events of the final, before switching to the award winners. It has a paragraph covering (what it presumably considers to be) the three most important awards, the Orange Cap, Purple Cap, and Emerging Player of the Season, then provides a full list of winners. While the article doesn't go into a huge amount of detail on each award besides listing its monetary value, the list of award winners shares primary-topic status with the winners of the final.

The second source is an ESPNCricinfo post-season analytics article discussing who they consider to be the most impactful players from the 2023 season. It closely references the major IPL award-winners, starting with its opening phrase: Faf du Plessis, and not Shubman Gill, is the most valuable player of the IPL 2023. It reminds readers that Shubman Gill won the MVP and Orange Cap awards two paragraphs later: The Player-of-the-Tournament and the Orange Cap winner Gill was part of a team that had more batters who took up the slack, before noting the Emerging Player of the Season, Yashasvi Jaiswal, was 3rd in their ranking. After more batting discussion, it switches to the bowlers: Mohammed Shami - the Purple Cap winner - came second to Siraj in terms of Bowling Impact per match. While the IPL awards are only a secondary topic of this article, it discusses the four most important/prestigious season-length player award-winners in detail, alongside comparisons to the players their analytics suggest were statistically the best. Preimage (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ESPNcricinfo sources fall under WP:ROUTINE coverage. Vestrian24Bio 03:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The ESPNcricinfo article we've been discussing here is clearly an in-depth news/analytics article (WP:INDEPTH), rather than WP:ROUTINE event coverage. To quote @Black Kite from the latest (2023) WP:RSN discussion in which Cricinfo/ESPNcricinfo is mentioned, WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 417#Reliability of cricket databases:
You're assuming that both sites are purely databases. They aren't. They're actually some of the highest quality sources for cricket, regardless of the fact that their websites also include databases.

Preimage (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERIT is an essay though, not a policy or guideline. The list's notability can be established by articles such as Scroll.in, The Indian Express, India Today, News18 and Wisden. Yuvaank (talk) 10:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the discussion on what should happen with this article continues up to today. There doesn't seem to be much debate about sourcing but about whether or not this article is a FORK and whether the content are just stats or notable subjects in their own right. And in the past day, participants have brought up the possibility of a Merge which I think is due more consideration. But if participants could just refer to policies, not essays, and give fuller arguments than just a Keep or Delete and consider other options, it will make closing this discussion in a few days easier.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Traveen Mathew

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

Non-notable cricketer, who fails WP:GNG. Has only played in T10 cricket, not any FC, List A or T20 competition which can often help increase significant coverage. This article was moved to draftspace and then moved back despite minimal insufficient improvements, which is why this AFD is necessary. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has played two First Class matches, 12 List A matches and four T20 matches. He also represented Sri Lanka at the Under-19s Asian Cup. I have added more information and sources including two from The Papare which focus heavily on him. Lookslikely (Talk 18:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i have added further information and another reference which features him as the main focus and in the article title. From my reading of the GNG rules this addition, along with the ones I previously made and are mentioned above, mean this article definitely passes the required SIG COV specification. Lookslikely (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the improvements, but I'm still not convinced he is notable, so I wish to continue this AFD to get consensus. Of the sources, [39], [40] are passing mentions in tournament squad lists, [41] is one paragraph of basic stats, [42] is from SLC so not independent coverage (and so does not contribute to WP:GNG, [43] is a match report with a bit of basic information about him. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I tried. Lookslikely (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is an encyclopedia and not a profile page where anybody can get to feature himself without any major achievements. The subject clearly fails GNG, yet the original editor is still trying to defend. Lookslikely, if you're paid to edit, kindly disclose conflict of interest. To the closing admin, this articles fails all criteria. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 01:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cameremote, your comment makes me wonder if you even examined this article. If you looked at the page history, you'd quickly see that that the article creator is Janeesh 22, not Lookslikely. Secondly, do not cast aspersions, like accusing an editor of working for pay while undisclosed, you better have evidence to support those accusations or you could be facing a block yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to above: I am not the original editor of this page. I just saw it on this list, Googled the guy and added some stuff to his page. I am not paid to edit on Wikipedia and couldn't give two hoots if it's deleted or not. Oh and before accusing people of things, at least have the courage to sign your username (Cameremote) chum. Lookslikely (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Out of boredom, I’m willing to save this page out of boredom if it has enough sources. Reader of Information (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will start working on it tomorrow if this is okay with y’all because honestly, it’s getting late lol. Reader of Information (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, clearly fails the notability criteria. And thanks for bringing to my attention the signing issue, I'm using mobile, and I assume it auto signs. Thanks for that. I say again, please disclose COI if you're directly or indirectly associated to the subject, because the way you're defending an article that fails GNG is alarming. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place

As I said, Cameremote, either provide proof of your allegations or stop making them. There is nothing inherently COI about defending an article from being deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to point out to the editor that the way he's defending the article is somehow. He should purely suggest that the article be moved back to draft, for further improvement rather than over-defending an article. Note: I'm not alleging anyone, and if there's any offense taken, my absolute apolgies. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 01:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The person in the article is clearly notable. Whether it passes WP:GNG or not is not really determinable as there is one source that is independent but I’m unsure if that suffices as it passing GNG. Although, it seems the sources are of Sri Lanka or newspapers mainly focused on cricket, the exception is Daily News.

Furthermore, I think it can he concluded that this crickteer is of presumed notability as he has been documented in multiple sources that range from 4 years ago to the most recent being a month ago.

In conclusion, I could see this article being of notability even if it’s a stub.

If the consensus is overwhelmingly delete, then I’d recommend it go back to the draft so it can be improved rather than delete because the information there is clearly of use and not useless.

Cheers,
Reader of Information (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for draftification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with draftification if it's that or deletion although I still think there is enough to justify this article remaining as is. Lookslikely (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2019 European Cricket League

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

Don't need separate season articles for this minor cricket tournament, all of the reasons for merge and redirecting 2023 and 2024 seasons (2023 AFD and 2024 AFD) apply to the 2019 and 2022 seasons as well. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Spain. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as both do have WP:SIGCOV from a number of international sources for them. They also fulfil WP:GNG therefore should not be deleted. Furthermore the rationales for the other seasons being deleted are not relevant to these two as 2024's ruling was on the grounds of no RS's (which the two here have loads of) and 2023's was on the grounds of a lack of SIGCOV (which both here have several demonstratively) and for being poorly source (see above for why that's not relevant here as both are well sourced). As an aside as well, AFD is the wrong forum to be proposing a merge. That's what WP:PM is for. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: no need for stand-alone season articles. Vestrian24Bio 01:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - basically per Vestrian. FOARP (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If these articles were Merged, what would the target article(s) be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 17:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The C of E, and that there's too much content within the 2022 article (which meets SIGCOV) to merge into the overall ECL article. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It looks like there probably is enough references available that could be added to this, but I would like to see more detail for a reader not familiar with the subject regarding why this season is notable. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge candidates

Proposed deletion candidates

Cue sports

Cycling

Cycling Proposed deletions

Deletion Review

For American football, see WikiProject Deletion sorting/American football

Primary listing for deletion nominations is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#Nominations for deletion and page moves. Items may be cross-listed here to allow automated archiving. (as of 2007-11-22)

Football

Dominik Ferenčič

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

He only played six minutes of professional level before disappearing for over one decade. Regarding secondary sources, I only found Netky and AktualitySK, both of which are passing mentions. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Muthomi

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

Not notable person; trivial mentions in media, no sigcov. Linkusyr (talk) 08:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sports, Football, Golf, and Kenya. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 09:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 10:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2031 AFC Asian Cup qualification

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

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Could be redirected to 2031 AFC Asian Cup as an WP:ATD. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Asia. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the references are the AFC itself (except about 2027 not 2031) and Wikipedia. This is an event 6 years into the future with a preceding event to come before it. Given all the information is simply about the 2027 event with the belief it will be the same in 2031 it is just pure speculation. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Football. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely WP:TOOSOON. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 06:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per WP:CRYSTAL. Svartner (talk) 10:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 FC Zebra Ladies Iwate season

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

Contested PROD but no reason provided. My initial concern was No indication of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS. This source mentions the team Zebra Ladies Iwate and confirms that it plays in division 2 of a regional league. This places the team in the 5th tier of Japanese women's football, which, in my view, is way too low to warrant a separate article (even in men's football in England, we only go down as far as the 4th tier in our season coverage here). To get an idea for the level of play here, please consider that the attendance of one of the league matches was only 30 spectators! This is way below the level that should be covered in a global encyclopaedia. By comparison, even matches in the seventh tier of England attract bigger attendances than this and nobody would argue that those seasons need their own articles. This article is the closest to WP:SIGCOV from those available but it barely covers FC Zebra Ladies Iwate and most of the coverage is about the two players being transferred. I think it's interesting that these Hong Kong footballers would join this random 5th tier Japanese team but creating an entire season article for it seems over the top.

I have considered WP:ATD but the team doesn't have an article and, in fact, even the league season doesn't have an article! To go even further, the actual league itself as a whole doesn't have an article. Creating an article on an individual team season before the team itself or even the league seems to be putting the cart before the horse. My proposal is we delete this article on a season that clearly doesn't warrant an article but I have no opposition to someone creating an article on the league and, perhaps, individual league seasons if they can provide appropriate independent sources. At a stretch, FC Zebra Ladies Iwate might warrant its own article but there would need to be plenty of good sources for that. I can't think of a scenario where this 2024 season for this 5th tier club would ever be notable as we are not a football almanac. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article took WP:BACKWARD to the next level. Even jawiki has no articles about them, nothing worth saving. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 14:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2035 AFC Asian Cup qualification

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

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Main article for the tournament doesn't even exist yet, and this was created way too early for no apparent reason. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Asia. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just a copy of the 2031 article (seriously, that exists too?) with minor adjustments. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle: I've now nominated that page for deletion as well. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per WP:CRYSTAL. Svartner (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We need to stamp out the perceived need to create articles several years ahead of time. This is ultimately detrimental to quality. Wikipedia does not stage a contest for the first creator of a topic. Geschichte (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This event will happen ten years from now, so there may not be enough significant coverage at the moment. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to AFC Asian Cup or Delete – WP:CRYSTALBALL. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jönköpings AIF

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

Defunct sports club which does not seem to meet WP:GNG. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Sport of athletics, and Sweden. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it was notable in its day. At worst, merge to Jönköping#Sport 2. Geschichte (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - being defunct is not a reason for non-notability. I agree with Geschichte that this appears to be notable. Giant Snowman 13:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - besides defunct. is part of history of Sweden football. Preserve history is one of goal of Wikipedia. Butzen (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kilbride Swifts F.C.

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

Non-notable amateur sports team. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CLUB. Article on same topic was previously deleted (following 2009 AfD which covered a number of clubs playing in regional junior/intermediate/amateur leagues). Article has been tagged for notability/refs since 2012 and for attention since 2022. It has been barely a 30-word sub-stub in all that time. In my own attempt to expand the article (and as part of WP:BEFORE) I cannot find sufficient sources to confirm if the club still exists. All I can find are scarce passing mentions in hyper-local sources in directory-style entries, decade-old ROTM match reports (or two decades for that matter), or this article from nearly 25 years ago about a head butt incident. I cannot find ANY sources which deal with the subject as a primary topic. I can't even find poor or passing mentions to even establish the basic facts (where the club is/was based, when it was formed, if it still exists, if/when it closed, etc). Not even primary ones (no website, no Twitter, no Facebook, nothing). If there aren't sufficient sources to write more than 50 words about this topic, how can we possibly state that GNG is met? Guliolopez (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of association football clubs in Northern Ireland – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While I had considered a possible AtD target like that, the club is not mentioned in the proposed target list. And, as above, I cannot find sufficient sources to determine whether or where to include it in that list(?) Where would we include the subject club on that list? Guliolopez (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not mentioned because it was last active in 2012, but the redirection to the club list is appropriate. Svartner (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 13:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Küçükköyspor

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

Having just one external link is not enough to show notability Chidgk1 (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of football clubs in Turkey#Regional and Amateur Clubs – As WP:ATD. Even the article on tr.wiki lacks sources for WP:V. Svartner (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bohdan Lazarenko

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

I can't seem to find any WP:SIGCOV on this player in either English or Ukrainian. Fails WP:GNG, as a result. Anwegmann (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Idoghor Melody (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matúš Digoň

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

Yet another stub about a Slovak men's footballer named Matúš without evidence of meeting WP:GNG. He mostly spent his career in lower levels of Slovak football and only played 54 minutes of professional match. SME has two sources dedicated to him (2018 and 2019), but those are interviews/quotes without independent analysis. Vranovské Noviny seems to be a transfer rumor. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Is "STATBOMB" a thing? Clearly fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is "STATBOMB" ? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was playing with the idea of a WP:REFBOMB but with stats, hence the "STATBOMB." Anwegmann (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I found some further sources, but nothing significant. I feel that his name being Matúš does not belong in the deletion rationale, however. C 679 21:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akane Okuma

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

Cannot find WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT. After this article was draftified, it was returned to mainspace with one additional source, but it's a database source that is not SIGCOV. Entirely possible I can't find something here due to the language barrier so please ping me if there's something I missed. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Japan. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete, notability is not indicated per the 0 senior games and no included significant coverage. Draftification was a good avenue, but was challenged, so here we are. Geschichte (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google News yields no result for both the Japanese and Romaji name. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to Weak Keep per sources belows, I've reviewed them and the Gekisaka (owned by Kodansha), Yahoo News is a good one, but I'm skeptical of the reliablity of myfuna.net. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 22:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Okuma has played for the Japanese U20 national team several times, and has recently been added to the senior Japanese national team, leading to articles like this one, a full profile of her as a player who played all seven games in a recent tournament for the U20 Japan squad, keeping European teams scoreless in some of those matches, and who is expected to make her mark as part of the national squad both now and in the future as the team is currently going through a turnover of veteran players. Absurdum4242 (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Absurdum4242 Do you have a second example of WP:SIGCOV to get her over the threshold for WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT? If you do, happy to withdraw the nom, but with only the article you supplied, we aren't there yet. Expected to make her mark is not a criterion for notability, and the article can always be recreated in the future when/if she meets the threshold. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971 The “expected to make her mark” was part of me summarising the article for those who refuse to use google translate rather than my opinion, but sure, here’s another article by a different outlet, also a profile of her as a new member of the national squad. Whereas This article is more a profile of her domestic career. I’m thinking three articles should maybe be enough? But honestly, the idea that a professional football player, who has already played at junior international levels, and is then called up to the national squad wouldn’t have gotten enough coverage along the way, even if they are a woman, seems unlikely to me just in general, especially given the “coverage only needs to exist, not to be currently cited in the article as written”. Absurdum4242 (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Draftify~~ – The player in question has just been called up to the Japan national team for the first time, a good chance of reaching WP:SIGCOV in the coming months. Svartner (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per new sources presented. Women's football is relevant enough in Japan to guarantee the article of an International footballer. Svartner (talk) 02:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep based on the additional sources supplied by Absurdum4242. Pinging GiantSnowman, Geschichte, Miminity to review. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which (allegedly - AGF!) show notability. Giant Snowman 18:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marius Toma

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

Still fails SPORTSCRIT, has been prodded before. Jay Cubby 23:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Romania. Jay Cubby 23:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources found. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 00:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 07:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Clearly fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thiago França

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

Footballer who played 11 minutes of professional football in 2011. Other sources list this individual as Brazilian. Not notable and no significant coverage. C 679 10:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. C 679 10:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 10:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Blatantly fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wilbert Fernandez

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

The single source provided is a passing mention. Unable to locate any sources which discuss this subject in detail. Lacks sufficient notability. C 679 07:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Venezuela. C 679 07:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 07:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Blatantly fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Villanueva

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

Doesn't appear to meet the general notability guideline. Coverage is limited to database sources, apparently as a footballer made 2 substitute appearances in 2012/13 and nothing since. C 679 11:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. C 679 11:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 11:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:Notability, no question for me. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 11:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis? Giant Snowman 11:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 11:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as with any proffesional footballer, there's plenty of routine, database type entries - but I'm not seeing any substantial coverage in newspapers or anywhere else. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 12:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, less notable than a person who joined an amateur theatre troupe and appeared in one play in the next town over, 20 years ago. Geschichte (talk) 12:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Blatantly fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Ferreira

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

No significant and independent coverage, far from meeting WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Singapore, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG, as you can see [44]. Svartner (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the above database link was correct and the player only played seven games in Singapore in his entire career, then I struggle to even work out how the page creator found the player to make an article in the first place. His own coaching profile claims that Ferreira played in Spain's Segunda División B for the reasonably sized CP Cacereño, [45] but there is no record on the highly comprehensive BDFutbol, so even that modest claim is doubtful. Unknown Temptation (talk) 11:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:GNG (WP:SPORTCRIT) criteria. Non-notable career ([46]) with only 7 matches for 518 minutes playing time. QEnigma talk 05:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Clearly fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2022–23 Moldovan Youth League

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

Youth football season with no indication of notability. Pretty much every yearly edition of this article is sourced only to primary sources. I don't see a possible redirect target, either, as no article for the youth league itself exists. JTtheOG (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Moldova. JTtheOG (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG, as all other articles of the Moldovan Youth League seasons. Svartner (talk) 11:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Clearly fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolò D'Agostino

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

Unfortunately fails GNG RossEvans19 (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Clearly fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 6 appearances and a single mention in a list of 51 other players in a routine publication does not confer notability. Recon rabbit 20:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. To call that unfortunate would be a stretch. C 679 21:11, 24 January 2025 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oleksandr Shyray

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

In several searches in Ukrainian and English, I have found no WP:SIGCOV for this player. He seems to fail WP:GNG as a result. Anwegmann (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to be a clear GNG fail. This probably won't be the last Chernihiv player that needs bringing here, sorry to say. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:48, 18 January 2025 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maksym Shumylo

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

Like others from this team, I can't seem to find any WP:SIGCOV on this player in Russian, Ukrainian, or English. As a result, this player appears to fail WP:GNG rather clearly. Anwegmann (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - despite his 71 appearances in the lower tiers of Ukraine, I can't find even one decent SIGCOV source, which is surprising. Ukrainian Wikipedia has nothing good to offer either. Maybe the lower tiers of Ukraine are not so well covered by the media. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Blatant weak to establish notability, considering that he only played 71 matches in lower tiers. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:13, 20 January 2025 (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.

2025 Renofa Yamaguchi FC Ladies Season

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

Regional women's football team season with no indication of notability. All sources are primary. JTtheOG (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and Japan. JTtheOG (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated some news sources, feel free to check it out. HKFighter (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources all look to be from the club's own website? Ergo, not SIGCOV. Giant Snowman 21:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's been some secondary coverage added, looks like player signings and an interview (1, 2, 3, 4). JTtheOG (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I have added somemore secondary sources to the article, as the season progress there should be more coverage available. HKFighter (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Clearly fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KeepEven this early into 2025, the season in question, the team has picked up coverage in NHK (the Japanese equivalent of the BBC), TBS (another major national news organisation), and the Yamaguchi Shinbun (the major newspaper for the region where the team is from). The coverage so far has been about their signing of two professional players, rather than games played, but that is because the season itself has not yet kicked off. One assumes there will be more coverage coming as the season progresses. It seems much too soon in the piece to AfD an article which is still clearly under construction, but which ALREADY has enough coverage in major independent news sources around the new signings to have achieved notability. If anyone is wondering / wants to check that coverage out in Japanese themselves, they are citations 2,7,8 and 11 on the article as currently written. Absurdum4242 (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also found more coverage both in various written articles, and also a TV broadcast. Here, here (with mirror version here since the original has paywalls) here, and here. It’s still mostly about the signings, but also about plans for the team to move out of the regional competitions, and into the professional leagues, and how signing professional players works as part of this plan. Still, that’s 7 different independent media sources, all with their own slant on the basic information and what it means. Absurdum4242 (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so that recently located sources (in the article and discussion) can be assessed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - based on the coverage above, Renofa Yamaguchi FC Ladies seems to be notable enough for an article. I'm not entirely convinced that we need to have a sub-article for this season as whatever can be pieced together from the limited sources would barely fill an article on the club, rendering a sub-article for this season unnecessary. If someone creates an article for the club with the reliable sources provided above, then we can delete this season article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have created an article for the page, it is currently under review. HKFighter (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, I mean an article for the club. HKFighter (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Used sources from this AfD and also moved the draft to mainspace. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 14:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for arranging this. On that basis, this season article covers little that Renofa Yamaguchi FC Ladies doesn't already cover in a better way, therefore, we can delete the season (as excessive detail for this level of football) but keep the club article based on the news coverage relating to the club. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Minister's Cup 2024

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NEVENT, tried to move to draftspace for improvement but the creator reverted the action. I brought it to AFD to avoid move-warring. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 08:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, India, and Uttar Pradesh. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 08:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Editors may recommend for draftifying if necessary. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 08:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Creator (me) reverted back by improving what reviewer told to improve

I added more sources

If needed more

I will add more

But aren't enough sources are given for a single exhibition match trophy cup? Sid Prayag (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Improved the article.. Look again into it Sid Prayag (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect with Kolkata Derby – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A whole new cup? a whole new event organized by other.. How can i mix it. Shouldn't it have a separate article for itself Sid Prayag (talk) 07:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I have provided many sources of media house covering this cup. Isn't it significant coverage? Sid Prayag (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—No reason to merge. Clearly not notable. Anwegmann (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any support for draftification here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled Azaiez

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

Bio of a footballer where most of the content is unsourced. Both sources in the article indicate that the subject was not n the team that won the Africa cup of nations in 2004 so there is literally nothing here that is sourced. A search for sources is complicated by the fact that there’s a Saudi player of the same name, but I don’t see in-depth coverage of this subject. Articles on other wikis are just sourced to databases. Mccapra (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Tunisia. Mccapra (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he won AFCON, the premier tournament in Africa. Really poor nomination. Giant Snowman 12:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Bad article, but certainly a notable player. Anwegmann (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any SIGCOV in Arabic- or French-language sources for Azaiez. He did make a single appearance for Tunisia at the 2004 AFCON, but it was in a final group stage match after Tunisia clinched progress after winning its first two group stage matches and fielded a largely reserve side in that match. I found that he also played in a single AFCON qualifier (according to RSSSF), but otherwise only appeared in a handful of friendlies. We can't really say much else about this footballer as there are no other online sources available. Jogurney (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jogourney. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per GiantSnowman and Anwegmann. Played 50+ pro games in Tunisian top flgiht and won AFCON. Deifnityl has offline sources. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. All Africa has something behind a paywall. Google gives the preview "Avec un goal d'expérience, le capitaine Khaled Azaiez, et un attaquant virevoltant et adroit comme Ettayeb, le Club Africain peut compter", meaning "With an experienced goalkeeper, captain Khaled Azaiez, and a skilful and agile striker like Ettayeb, Club Africain can count on". In other words, while that is a WP:PASSING mention, it states that Azaiez was not just a squad player for Club Africain, but captain. Geschichte (talk) 12:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2004 African Cup of Nations squads#Tunisia – As WP:ATD. If new sources are found, I change my vote. Svartner (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cleethorpes Town F.C. (1901)

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

Local club without significant, non-routine coverage. All we have are match reports, mostly from very local sources, which are primary sources, not the required secondary sources needed to meet WP:GNG. Fram (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Football, and England. Fram (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: am biased as I created it, but helps to avoid confusion with other Cleethorpses, and they did get quite deep in the FA qualifying rounds.

Unfortunately am stuck with local sources because the British Newspaper Archive is no longer available to editors. There are long-standing stub pages extant for clubs of a similar stamp who did not have such good Cup runs. We probably need a definition of Notable for football, but note that the current Cleethorpes Town has not lasted as long a period as this one, plays at a lower level, and has been less successful in the FA Cup. Would it not be recency bias to have the current one but not a predecessor? In Vitrio (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Fram (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's relevant in this case - other stuff is evidence that a long run of FA Cup qualifying appearances has long been considered Notable and it does not seem to have been controversial. Especially as the club's run in 1919–20 made them one of the last 90 clubs in the competition, i.e. equivalent of Second Round Proper nowadays. There is not a page for the 1919–20 Qualifying Rounds yet, but in the 1920–21 FA Cup qualifying rounds page, every club reaching that particular stage has its own entry, so if notable in 1920, why not 1919? In Vitrio (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having an article doesn't necessarily mean being notable, just that perhaps no one has checked thoroughly. That's what "otherstuffexists" basically means, you are arguing that other articles are notable or that other similar articles about less notable subjects exist, but you aren't arguing how you will resolve the lack of secondary sources which means that this topic doesn't meet WP:GNG. We judge articles on AfD based on policies and guidelines, not on other articles. Fram (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that in EVERY other instance, for a decade, teams which have reached this stage have either been accepted as Notable or nobody has even thought to challenge their notability. Hence all their pages are still standing. I don't get why the exception for this one side. That I cannot find more sources is more down to my access than anything else, and given a start I'd think others could find more. In Vitrio (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – It has three local newspapers in addition to at least two books of specialized literature covering the content. Considering the club existed until the late 1940s, isn't that enough? Svartner (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The books are about Grimsby Town FC, not about Cleethorpes FC. Fram (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't really see any problem with the sourcing as a quick search of the British Newspaper Archives brings up more than just local coverage and merging this into one of the other Cleethorpes Town articles doesn't really make sense, but at worst merge to the Cleethorpes Town F.C. (1884) article. SportingFlyer T·C 06:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you add some of the non-local coverage please? Giant Snowman 08:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't have access to the British Newspaper Archive apart from the search. Just trying to confirm it's notable, not improve it. SportingFlyer T·C 23:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of the "vibes of notability" comment in the relist - sources do exist and can be found, I just don't have access. SportingFlyer T·C 18:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep—If additional sources, as described above can be added to the article, I'll support keeping it more wholeheartedly. Anwegmann (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We seem to be operating on the vibes of notability more than the kinds of keep !votes that would establish consensus with this level of participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Fram. Could you describe the content to me in the first two sources: "Sport & play" and "The football field". I'm not expecting much from the first, as this looks like it would be nothing more than an announcement, but otherwise I'd be surprised if the second source, citing the club's change of name, hasn't included some coverage of the past few years of the club's history. You have explicitly stated there is only match reports, so which matches are these first two sources reporting on? Could you also explain to me how these WP:TIER3 sources are primary, rather than secondary sources that lack independence from the subject? If these are indeed secondary sources, what is the involvement with the subject, based on the content, that excludes them from SIGCOV? I'm otherwise torn on this, at present in the article there is almost certainly not enough for GNG (although, unable to verify this), and from searching through some books there was only passing coverage. I'd expect a lot more coverage from a club in involved in the early history of English football, but I also don't have access to BNA either. CNC (talk) 13:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PRIMARY: "For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources." Things like match reports are eyewitness accounts of a very recent event, not what is described in WP:SECONDARY: "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources."- I have no direct access to the sources here, but they look like match reports or recent sporting news overviews, not indepth secondary sources about the club and its history. In Vitrio (article creator) is rather thorough (which is a good thing), if the second source had more indepth info and background about the first few years of the club beyond the namechange, I'm sure it would have been included. Fram (talk) 08:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Have now been able to see the relevant snippet of the source about the name change[47], and it's a small local announcement about the playing field having sustained damage, and the namechange is just a parenthesis: "Cleethorpes Town (late St. Peter's) Football Club", so no, it has no coverage at all of the club's history. Fram (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- One issue is you are not going to get ANY secondary sources for (within a rounding error) ANY football club in the first part of the 20th century. There was no football literature outside of the football annuals, which are not readily available. And any retrospecitves or club profiles are only going to be in newspapers. The British Library's Football Compendium lists only FIFTEEN general works for the first half of the 20th century - and that includes a thesis, two general sport books with chapters on football, and two books on football in PoW camps in World War 1. Even the biggest club of the 1930s (Arsenal) did not have a single book about them in period.
But it goes back again to the point I made about Notability and recency bias. You're not going to get secondary sources about teams that are unambiguously Notable because there's not going to be a market. The wikipedia guidelines on sources simply do not work going this far back because the media environment was very different. And LITERALLY EVERY OTHER CLUB at this stage in the competition in this period has an entry, some up for a decade, and have NEVER been challenged. I question why Fram is only challenging this particular one. Not the first time Fram has challenged one of the articles I've put up - and nobody else ever has. In Vitrio (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"You're not going to get secondary sources about teams that are unambiguously Notable": if you don't have secondary sources, then they are unambiguously not notable, as it states there (bold in original): "Sources" should be secondary sources. Fram (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In which case you're wiping out ALL of football before the Second World War. Unless you count the annuals and I don't have access to them. It took until about 2018 for anyone to provide a decent secondary source for the Clapham Rovers and they were FA Cup winners. There still are none for Scottish Cup finalists like Renton or Clydesdale.

The very fact that football does not have a notability guideline shows that strict policy does not work. Otherwise it would have been a piece of cake to draft one up. One has to take it in context and in this context it is bizarre to single out one club. You haven't explained why you are only nominating this one and not every other, more obscure, club whose article has been around for a decade (I give FC Alemannia 1897 Karlsruhe or Colne Town as examples). Why is THIS ONE not Notable but the others ARE? The point about others being obviously Notable is that it encourages research into those overlooked. You're seeking to stop all that. I don't get it.

And indeed note the paradox. If this one gets deleted, why not nominate every single other club who got to the last 90 of the Cup? Because a fortiori they are not Notable either. But I've got all the drafts, so I could approach a friendly publisher, put out a book, and then there is a secondary source. Bingo. It's not logical to decree that e.g. W.O.A.C. are Notable because someone has put them in a book but Stafford Road are not because nobody has yet. They were both the same stature and notoriety in period. In Vitrio (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's how notability on Wikipedia works. If X gets the secondary sources, but equally important or more so Y doesn't, then X is notable and Y isn't. We aren't here to second-guess the sources and why they choose to include one and exclude the other, and we aren't here to write histories for subjects no reliable source so far has bothered to do this. If this means unequal treatment or your favourite subject not getting a Wikipedia article, then so be it. Fram (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
People HAVE written about Cleethorpes Town in the context of individual players' careers. There may be other sources of which I am unaware and people might use those to add in. It's not a favourite subject, by the way, never even been to Cleethorpes, but it was stumbling across something that made me realize that this was a different club from the other two Cleethorpes Towns, so needed to be split out, and having the page avoids confusion. Especially given the 1901 iteration did get to the equivalent of the FA Cup second round. As I've said, there are many clubs with less good sources and records whose pages have been up for years and nobody has challenged them. Because nobody doubts their Notability. In Vitrio (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Rossi (footballer, born 1982)

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

This AfD might be the same issue as Juan Alberto Ramírez that was nominated back in November. Even by searching for his name in combination of clubs he played for, I did not find any significant coverage of Paolo Rossi (footballer, born 1982) to meet WP:GNG. He only played one match for Torino in 2001/02 season, one of the professional football clubs in Italy, before moving to amateur leagues then disappeared for over two decades. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Italy. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – The fact that he is a homonym hinders the search, but it is still possible to confirm the athlete's career at the first levels of Italian football. [48], [49], [50]. Svartner (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Sources above from Svartner are 2 x database and 1 x profile from the league he played in. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ilcalcio provides detailed information, but I agree that more informative sources are missing. Svartner (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Those are database sources which do not count towards significant coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly didn't read the source, or are you confused with Tutto Calciatore. There is a good coverage of the athlete's career and not just statistical data. The problem is that as I explained, the player is a homonym, so additional sources to ensure WP:SIGCOV are harmed/difficult to search. It's a more complex case than usual. Svartner (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Svartner, Il Calcio is AI-generated. JoelleJay (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete—Although I agree that the sources listed above are "not nothing," they are not WP:SIGCOV in my view. Anwegmann (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think we have the bare minimum of sourcing. I did find some passing mentions in an Italian source search which are definitely him from his Serie B days. SportingFlyer T·C 03:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the exact references? Passing mentions obviously don't count towards significant coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Il Calcio is clearly an AI-generated summary of his stats (as are all profiles on that site; GPTzero gave all the ones I tested 100% probability of being AI-generated). LegaPro is a blog network, and anyway it's a routine transfer announcement of mostly quotes. Tutto Calciatori is a database. JoelleJay (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Svartner and SportingFlyer. Played 100+ pro games in Italian Serie C. Deifnityl has offline sources. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Playing 100+ matches in lower leagues might be a weak claim to notability at best, but there must be WP:SIRS to establish the person's notability, which we can't unfortunately find. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you think AI-generated content is RS?! JoelleJay (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Golf

Articles for deletion

Robert Muthomi

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

Not notable person; trivial mentions in media, no sigcov. Linkusyr (talk) 08:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sports, Football, Golf, and Kenya. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 09:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 10:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OGA Golf Course

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

This golf course has gotten a few brief mentions in some news articles, but none of them have gone into enough depth to justify its notability. Fails GNG. Badbluebus (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Sports, Golf, United States of America, and Oregon. Badbluebus (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Engineered constructs says:
Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.

Sources
1. Wallach, Jeff (2004). Best Places to Golf Northwest: British Columbia to Northern Utah, the Western Rockies to the Pacific. Seattle: Sasquatch Books. pp. 31–32. ISBN 978-1-57061-395-1. Retrieved 2025-01-17 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "The Oregon Golf Association (OGA) Members Course at Tukwila may have one of the longest names around, but it's also long on great golf. Bill Robinson stitched together this tapestry of holes in Woodburn, forty minutes south of Portland. The fabric of Bentgrass stretches 6,650 from the longest of four sets of tees and boasts a couple of reachable (and especially good) par 5s, a huge double green at nine and eighteen, and some of the finest putting surfaces in the region. Water, wicked bunkers, and pesky woods are also on the menu of this stupendous walking course. The holes here are pure and clever. The OGA course opens with an inviting slight dog right followed by the opposite dog, but this one has more bite—in the form of a hazelnut orchard right, a pond left, and a tree and bunkers that could come into play. Number four is a complex 516 yards: Blind tee shots run down toward a ravine. The second shot climbs back uphill between bunkers and forest and over the chasm to a plateau green. A second par 5 follows. The back side contains the best par 3 on the course, a volatile 172 yards that slope toward water. ..."
2. Robinson, Bob (1996-05-01). "New OGA Members Course draws rave reviews". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2025-01-17. Retrieved 2025-01-17 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "The opening of the course's second nine holes in late April marked a milestone—the accomplishment of the OGA's 20-year dream. ... The OGA isn't finished. A clubhouse is in the long-range planning stages to replace the current temporary building. But the major goal—the public golf course—finally is a reality. ... In effect, the OGA Members Course is owned by the nearly 50,000 members of the OGA from 154 member clubs in Oregon and Southwest Washington. The members paid the dues that made the project possible. The idea began in the mid-1970s, when the OGA started having difficulty securing courses for its tournaments. ... In 1976, the OGA began charging each member $1 in annual dues to go into a course acquisition and usage fund. Later, the charge was raised to $2 per member and, finally, $5 when a five-year capital assessment went into effect. Still, as late as 1993, the project was no sure thing. The OGA had $1.2 million in its fund at the time."
3. Petshow, Joe (1994-07-31). "OGA to open its course. The first nine holes open for public play on Tuesday". Statesman Journal. Archived from the original on 2025-01-17. Retrieved 2025-01-17 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "The Oregon Golf Association's new Members' Course faces a tough task in the days ahead. Keeping 50.000 shareholders happy. ... Nine holes of the course will open to the public on Tuesday. A driving range and putting green opened earlier this year. A second nine holes is scheduled to be completed in 1996. The clubhouse will be the site of the OGA's offices and also will house a golf museum. ... The course is located at Tukwila, a new housing development in north Woodburn. The Tukwila partners donated 170 acres. ... The Members' Course was designed by Bill Robinson, who recently renovated Willamette Valley Country Club in Canby and Bend Country Club. The course flows through a filbert orchard and has six lakes, three wetlands and 31 sand bunkers. ... Another feature is an 18,000-square-foot green, which will be used for the ninth and the 18th holes after the second nine is built. Until then, it will serve as the ninth green. The course also has a 12,000-square- foot putting green, and a driving range with an 80-yard wide tee area, three flag placements and seven targets."
4. Wallach, Jeff (2013-09-25). "The Off-Trail Oregon Golf Trip". Links. Archived from the original on 2025-01-17. Retrieved 2025-01-17.
  This is the same author as Wallach 2004. The article notes: "As you head inland over the Coast Range to the lush Willamette Valley, try your best to turn a cold shoulder to Pumpkin Ridge Golf Club and instead set your sights on the OGA Golf Course. Unlike its name, the course is anything but unwieldy. Located half an hour south of Portland, this Bill Robinson layout boasts a couple of reachable par 5s, a huge double green at Nos. 9 and 18, and some of the finest putting surfaces in the region. The layout opens with two dogleg—No. 1 bends slightly right while No. 2 turns left. The second has more bite, with a hazelnut orchard right, a pond left, and a tree and bunkers that could come into play as one approaches the green. The 4th hole is a complex 516 yards, beginning with a blind tee shot that runs toward a ravine. The second shot climbs back uphill between bunkers and through forest, over a chasm to a plateau green."
5. Petshow, Joe (1993-09-01). "Officials plan for OGA course". Statesman Journal. Archived from the original on 2025-01-17. Retrieved 2025-01-17 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Golf nuts should enjoy the future home of the Oregon Golf Association. The OGA's planned 18-hole public course and an Oregon Golf Hall of Fame is situated north of Woodburn on farmland that includes a filbert orchard. The association on Tuesday officially unveiled the plans for the course, under construction east of Boones Ferry Road and north of Highway 214. The scheduled opening for the first nine holes is May 1994. ... The first phase of construction includes nine golf holes, a driving range, maintenance facility and temporary clubhouse. The cost for the first phase is approximately $1.7 million. ... The course, which includes a wetlands area and views of Mount Hood, will be within the Tukwila real estate development. The 170 acres of land for the golf course was donated to the OGA."
6. Less significant coverage:
  1. Golf Digest (2006). Carney, Bob (ed.). OGA Golf Course (7 ed.). New York: Fodor's. p. 534. ISBN 978-1-4000-1629-7. ISSN 1534-1356. Retrieved 2025-01-17 – via Internet Archive.
    The article notes: "★★★★1⁄2 OGA GOLF COURSE. PU-2850 Hazelnut Dr., Woodburn, 97071, 503-981-6105. Web: ogagolfcourse.com. Facility Holes: 18. Opened: 1996. Architect: William Robinson. Yards: 6,650/5,498. Par: 72/72. Course Rating: 71.7/71.8. Slope: 131/128. Green Fee: $26/$48. Cart Fee: $25 per cart. Cards: MasterCard, Visa, Discover. Discounts: Weekdays, twilight, seniors, juniors. Walking: Unrestricted walking. Walkability: 2. Season: Year-round. High: Apr.-Nov. Tee Times: Call 5 days in advance. Notes: Range (grass, mat). Comments: This "must-play course" has the "best condition and layout in the state." It has "soft lines, big greens and tough pins." The "front nine, which winds through hazelnut trees our readers tell us, is more interesting and challenging than the "boring" back."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow OGA Golf Course to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 12:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Categories

Handball

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Handball

Deletion review

none

Proposed deletions

Comment on the talk pages of the articles, not here.

Files proposed for deletion

None

Templates for deletion

None

Categories

Current vacant

Ice hockey

Martial arts

Articles for deletion

Irman Smajić

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

Subject fails GNG and NMMA for not having WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS. WP:RS sources whereby the sources talk above the subject in length and depth for WP:V. Also, the subject is not a UFC fighter, as indicated in the article. Cassiopeia talk 06:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and Sweden. Cassiopeia talk 06:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly non-notable. Simonm223 (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete misinformation. non-notable fighter with a 4-1 record and no top tier promotion experience. Greenflipper (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Bosnia and Herzegovina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Karaki

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

Doesn't reach notability for MMA criteria nor in general notability. HeinzMaster (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, Middle East, and Lebanon. HeinzMaster (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fight results, databases, and interviews do not constitute significant independent coverage. Won minor titles, but never beat a fighter ranked in the top 300. Found no evidence he meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NMMA, or any other WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 04:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Alanis

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't meet GNG and no longer meets NMMA Nswix (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Nswix (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Databases and fight results don't show that WP:GNG is met. Although he met an old notability criteria for MMA fighters, with a 5-3 record he never came close to meeting the existing standard of being world top 10. Fails to meet any current WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 03:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cian Cowley

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

With Fightmatrix ranking #464 Welterweight, and insufficient general notability, doesn't meet WP:NMMA (expecting 'top 10'). Klbrain (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems pretty straightforward that this subject doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NMMA. Velayinosu (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks significant independent coverage and with a world ranking that never got as high as 400 clearly fails to meet WP:NMMA. Highest ranked fighter he ever beat was ranked #671 according to fightmatrix. Database entries are not sufficient to show WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:NMMA, no other claim to notability. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

After a deletion discussion it was decided to merge Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Motorsports into this page. For the archive of WikiProject Deletion sorting/Motorsports, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Motorsports/archive.

Motorsport

Articles for deletion

Rise Motorsports

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

The article currently only has 3 sources - 2 are social media and the last is an entry list. After a search I could not find a 3rd party source. Definitely nothing to pass any sort of WP:SIGCOV. Grahaml35 (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Grahaml35 (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Comment on the talk pages of the articles, not here.

Categories

Rugby league

Rugby union

Arnold Landvoigt

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

Tagged for notability since 2022. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Rugby union, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Olympedia has an extensive biography of him which is SIGCOV. He was an Olympic medalist and German national champion sprinter and later became a noted U.S. Secret Service agent, receiving SIGCOV for that too, e.g. [51]. He meets WP:GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Is Olympedia a reliable source? I am not seeing an editorial board or any named authors on their website... That is concerning.4meter4 (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes it's reliable: its written by a team of Olympic historians such as Bill Mallon, and previously much of the content was hosted on Sports-Reference, also a reliable source. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or, put another way: See the site's "about" page. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw that. No managing editor named or editorial board given. It gives a list of authors but does not tie the authors to specific entries. It's rather vague other than to say most of the members belong to the International Society of Olympic Historians; but that society is open to anyone who pays dues so that doesn't really mean anything. Literally anyone can join if they write a cheque or use a credit card. I wasn't impressed.4meter4 (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Olympedia and the Pittsburgh Press article discovered by BeanieFan11 are enough to fulfill GNG for this well-before internet era individual. There is probably more coverage somewhere in physical newspaper archives too but obviously we can't access that. Lookslikely (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG. There is other coverage of him in digitised newspapers (Newspapers.com), as an athlete, a secret service agent and, as BeanieFan11 has shown, as the head of the United States Secret Service. (Olympedia may or may not be reliable, but the information it provides can be used to search other reliable sources.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for discussion

Softball

Pavel Mašek

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

Unable to uncover significant sources which discuss the subject independently and in detail. C 679 11:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Softball, and Czech Republic. C 679 11:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Do not comment on these articles here. If you agree with the proposed deletion, you don't have to do anything. If you think the article merits keeping, the remove the {{prod}} template and make an effort to improve the article so that it clearly meets the notability and verifiability criteria.

Templates for discussion

Template:Softball Boxscore ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Softballbox7 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Categories for discussion

Tennis

West Superior Invitation

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

No indication of notability, sources are not independent, passing mentions or database entries (which don't support much of what they are used for in the article anyway[52]). No indepth independent reliable sources about the tournament found. Fram (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Tennis, United States of America, and Wisconsin. Fram (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep, it says the Tennis Archives have been cited—they can't lie!~~ Delete per nom unless significant coverage turns up, in which case ping me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Türk Telecom İzmir Cup

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

When I click the reference it says ‘This request was blocked by our security service’ even though I am in Turkey. The Turkish article is also tagged as uncited and their external link also does not work. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tennis and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was a big tennis event in Turkey for many years. Just because the links are broken now doesn't mean they were at the time. The 2016 event is still archived right here. The ATP talks about the 2017 version. What this needs is better sourcing not deleting. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slight keep, I don't speak Turkish but it does seem like it could pass WP:GNG based on a Google News Search. Also, a source being blocked by one's ISP is not valid reason for deletion. ✶Qux yz✶ 17:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think it was my ISP or the government here that blocked it as when that happens I either get a message in Turkish or the site just hangs or times out. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling

Ethan H. D.

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

No notable independent wrestler. No in deep coverage from third party sources, just some passing mentions [53] which are WP:ROUTINE. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Wrestling, and Illinois. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 13:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources aside from wrestling databases and blogs. Even then, coverage isn't substantial- just mentions that he fought at an event or the fact that he tried out for the WWE. Ultimately, not notable. Jordano^5³ 14:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ECCW Vancouver Island Championship

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

No notable regional title promoted by an independent promotion. No in deep coverage from third party sources. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and Canada. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 13:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stay – If the page doesn't have any references People and editors should add them bit by bit and piece by piece. The same with the ECCW Hardcore Championship until their non-deleted pages. The page really just needs an additional citations for verification add on, in then it's fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B29C:B26C:CD0F:F438:B3A9:1A1B (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. Stay# – I agree with 2600:1004:B29C:B26C:CD0F:F438:B3A9:1A1B with a lot of things and when it comes to this page. Plus I agree with him when it comes to the ECCW Hardcore Championship page as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.189.232.174 (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cagematch isn't enough. Cagematch it's a database that includes every championship in the world. Cagematch doesn't prove notability. Third party sources focusing on the title are needed. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Possiblity - The page probably needs an additional citations for verification add on to it and then the page is perfectly fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B2AB:CC1:5F45:1A6C:9750:65A (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ECCW Hardcore Championship

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

No notable regional title promoted by an independent promotion. No in deep coverage from third party sources. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and Canada. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 13:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stay – Added a Cagematch in the external links so hopefully the page should stay. The page really just needs an additional citations for verification add on, in then it's fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B29C:B26C:CD0F:F438:B3A9:1A1B (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. Stay# – If the page doesn't have any references People and editors should add them bit by bit and piece by piece until it's a non-deleted page like 2600:1004:B29C:B26C:CD0F:F438:B3A9:1A1B said when it came to the ECCW Vancouver Island Championship non-deletion page argument which whom I agree with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.189.232.174 (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cagematch isn't enough. Cagematch it's a database that includes every championship in the world. Cagematch doesn't prove notability. Third party sources focusing on the title are needed. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possiblity - The page probably needs an additional citations for verification add on to it and then the page is perfectly fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B2AB:CC1:5F45:1A6C:9750:65A (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sportspeople

Fahrer / Team für die Suche eingeben:

Fahrer / Team für die Suche eingeben:

Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Sports

Sports-related Proposed Deletion nominations

Sports-related Categories for discussion

American football

Deletion review

Files proposed for deletion

Templates for deletion

Categories

Baseball

Articles for deletion

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Templates for discussion

Categories for discussion

Requested moves

Basketball

Proposed deletions

Categories

Bodybuilding

Boxing

Articles for deletion

Proposed deletions

Categories

Cricket

Articles for deletion

Proposed merge candidates

Proposed deletion candidates

Cue sports

Cycling

Cycling Proposed deletions

Deletion Review

Football

Golf

Articles for deletion

Proposed deletions

Categories

Handball

Deletion review

Files proposed for deletion

Templates for deletion

Categories

Ice hockey

Martial arts

Articles for deletion

Proposed deletions

Motorsport

Articles for deletion

Proposed deletions

Categories

Rugby league

Rugby union

Templates for discussion

Softball

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Templates for discussion

Categories for discussion

Tennis

Wrestling