Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cycling age categories

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cycling age categories

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

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

Fails to assert importance. Content is unsourced. OXYLYPSE (talk) 10:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is not sourced at all. Ashishkafle (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @Ashishkafle: Note that per WP:NEXIST, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Of note is that some sources were added to the article (by another user) on 3 July 2020‎ (UTC). In the user's edit summary, part of it stated "meets notability per WP:LISTN" (diff).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per non --Devokewater (talk) 08:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Reasons given for RfD no longer apply. Article is now referenced, and per admin above, meets notability. — WILDSTAR^talk 22:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Initially deleted but after some comments were raised, I decided to relist instead so that the newest edits to the article can be evaluated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 19:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the recent improvements. I've struck-through my previous reply. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unimportant details that don't merit a standalone article. The title is really misleading; it's only the categories for two specific organizations. If desired, the first half could be merged into British Cycling, while you'd have to wait until someone created British Schools Cycling Association to find a home for the second half. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT - only edits to try to improve the article have been labeled as minor, and I agree. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my note above, and because the article now has references, and asserts importance; satisfying the two reasons provided why the AfD was initiated. — WILDSTAR^talk 14:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Perhaps the topic is valid but certainly an appropriate article titled "Cycling age categories" covers information much more globally relevant than two UK organisations. I don't believe the content on British Cycling is useful to that article. — Bilorv (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MaskedSinger (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2020 (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.