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:

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

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

Muckleball

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

Very poor sourcing and no evidence of notability found when searching online. The 4 sources at the moment are [1] a crowdsourced local paper, not a real journalistic reliable source: [2] an opinion piece: [3] a self-published book; [4] and a 1911 article about a baseball game called the Muckleball game, with no indication at all that this is in any way related to what is described in the Wikipedia article. These issues were discussed with the editor, but to no avail. Fram (talk) 08:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of reliable sourcing. I have removed the third source due to it being an Amazon listing and thus likely violating WP:USERGEN.

-Samoht27 (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RS:X Youth World Championships

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

The list of championships includes only 13 events, none of which have their own Wikipedia article. This leads me to believe the page may violate notability guidelines. I think it should be merged back into the main article, as it doesn't meet the criteria for a standalone page. However, given the heavy reliance on primary sources, there may be little, if any, content worth merging. Johnson524 06:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Sports. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ARV Loshan Sports

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

A duplicate exists at Draft:ARV Loshan Sports already. I can't find any independent, reliable sources discussing ARV Loshan Sports and the article creator appears to have a strong COI. The YouTube channel has a reasonable subscriber count but it needs significant coverage from independent sources to be considered notable enough for Wikipedia. No evidence of a WP:GNG pass. I've reviewed the newly added references and none of them demonstrate notability. The 'example.com' reference doesn't even work. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Sports, Internet, and Sri Lanka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the Tamil Media Weekly source doesn't work for me. It tries to take me to arvloshan.com, which doesn't exist as a domain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – ARV Loshan Sports is a notable Tamil-language sports media platform, widely followed in the Tamil-speaking community, especially among Sri Lankan and Indian sports fans. It has been operating for over 5 years, and its founder Ragupathy Vaamalosanan is a veteran media personality with more than 30 years in radio broadcasting. The platform is regularly cited in independent sports news reports and has gained recognition through social media and regional media outlets.
I have added reliable sources to the article, including coverage in facebook and instagram mostly youtube. The subject passes Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines due to significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Niroshanraja (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook, Instagram and YouTube are not independent sources. They are user-generated content. If you can provide reliable news sources discussing ARV Loshan Sports in detail then I'll reconsider. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG - social media channels, such as Facebook and YouTube, are not considered reliable sources. The Tamil news link is broken, so can't be considered, and the ARV Loshan Sports website is a primary source (not independent) if the link was working. Dan arndt (talk) 01:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I left a COI alert on User talk:Niroshanraja, the editor who created this article. Several editors have mentioned that concern (as do I). DMacks (talk) 12:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatantly AI-generated. According to the article, as of [date], there is limited coverage in mainstream or national media, which affects its notability under Wikipedia guidelines. This seems like a fair assessment. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incredible. In all of my years here this has to be the first time that I've seen an article actually state its own lack of notability! Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton Rowing Club

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

Very short stub & has a lot of issues. It doesn't even meet the notability criteria _saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs^⚔ 16:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, Olympics, and New Zealand. Skynxnex (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At 120 years old, the club has been around. Could you please outline what you have done regarding WP:BEFORE, Ophyrius? Schwede 66 08:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Schwede66! I did a quick search on my search engine and all the content that was displayed was of other clubs. Only this article was this Wikipedia one that told about this specific club. Because of that I don't think this is as notable. But, I may be using a search engine other than yours. If you find any sources from there please tell. _saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs^⚔ 03:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, we have digitised newspapers in New Zealand at PapersPast; mostly up to 1945 but some going as recent as 1989. When I search for the phrase "Hamilton Rowing Club" (i.e. not just the words, but the equivalent of searching for a string of words in quotation marks), I get 1,942 results. Much of that will be routine reporting, but I'm sure there will be some gems in there, too. If you weren't aware of PapersPast, you wouldn't have found those results; you have to search through their website directly. As such, I shall place a keep !vote. Schwede 66 08:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Flying Wedge Award

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

I do not see any sigcov for this award. GoldRomean (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Sports, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Innova Champion Discs

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

Article on a disc golf equipment manufacturer entirely reliant on primary or non-independent sources that doesn't meet WP:NORG or WP:GNG. While they do appear on the surface to be a fairly major supplier of equipment, a search did not reveal any additional sources that would lend notability, with all results limited to either press releases, the organization's corporate website, or listings in shopping sites. The single book referenced in the article only contains passing mentions of the company. nf utvol (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Sports, and California. nf utvol (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination is an excellent example of counterproductive deletionism. Innova is undoubtedly one of the most prominent companies in the sport of disc golf, with numerous references available to support this assertion. You are welcome to mark the article as lacking references, but a deletion request is unwarranted. Iketsi (talk) 04:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In order to support your claims, please provide the references. My WP:BEFORE review didn't turn up anything that would contribute to notability; if it's as prominent and important as you say it is, then I should have been able to find more than press releases, photo credits in a book, and listings on sporting goods sites. nf utvol (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but add those missing sources, agree with above comments. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What missing sources? The individual claiming sources didn't provide any references at all. Best I can tell is that there are none. nf utvol (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Bilili Bangura

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

This guy doesn't meet the notability requirements. Article is an orphan. He plays for a division four team in Sweden -- an amateur league -- Wikipedia doesn't cover amateur football per guidelines. Finally, one of the sources seems to be a blog, and the other two aren't reliable sources. Not WP:SUSTAINED, fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS, and has serious NPOV issues. Also not notable bc it's only of interest to local people. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, Football, South Africa, and Sweden. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am a little confused by this one, is it a WP:HOAX ? Govvy (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think he is a real footballer, he appeared in National-football-teams. But I can't find source for most of the information in the article like "he joined his brother Abdul Bangura" and "one of the best midfielder for Härnösands FF" KhoaNguyen1 (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah -- per @KhoaNguyen1, it's not that he doesn't exist -- he just plays for a tier 4 swedish team (amateur level,) and doesn't have sigcov or reliable sources. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator, that footballer has only played 2 professional matches KhoaNguyen1 (talk) 10:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too many red flags for me, doesn't seem to pass GNG for me either. Govvy (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 01:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 01:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I haven't been able to find many RSes that can be used to bolster his notability. If the assertion is true that he has only played 2 professional matches, I fail to see how this reaches the levels of notability required for an athlete. WP:TOOSOON likely applies here. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nic Adam

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

LUGSTUB-a-like, no SIGCOV. Only passing mentions in long lists of names found in my WP:BEFORE, though this is hardly helped by the super-common name Nicholas Adam/Nic Adam creating many false positives. Fails WP:NSPORT. FOARP (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Olympics, and Luxembourg. FOARP (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Luxembourg at the 1912 Summer Olympics – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Luxembourg at the 1912 Summer Olympics: Unable to find the needed WP:SIGCOV for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. Participating in the Olympics does not grant inherent notability. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Turf Classic Stakes finishers and starters

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

Undetailed list article that could easily be merged without much trouble into the main Turf Classic Stakes article or be deleted entirely. -Samoht27 (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Horse racing, United States of America, and Kentucky. -Samoht27 (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I googled Turf Classic Stakes Wise Dan Optimizer Middie to see if there was an coverage of the individual races outside of the papers that publish the stakes, and couldn't find anything. That tells me the second and third place finishers aren't encyclopedic. The finishers can already be found at Turf Classic Stakes#Winners. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above summary of why this isn't needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced and unnecessary article, not really worthy of a merge. Ajf773 (talk) 09:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as TheDeafWikipedian pointed out, though if any RS can be found, not opposed to merge with Turf Classic Stakes for its info.Villkomoses (talk) 09:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American Sailing

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

While American Sailing does offer training sources, this sailing program fails WP:NORG. GTrang (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GTrang (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant oorganization that sets a nationwide standard. Rochambeau1783 (talk) 02:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have not found any secondary sources that back up the claims made in the article (i.e. that it is the predominant standards bearer for sailing the Americas). World Sailing seems to be the international body that actually sets standards for the sport, and US Sailing is the member org for the united states. Article seems more promotional to direct people to schools from American sailing which I expect is how they make their money. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colts–Jaguars rivalry

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not appear to have coverage from sources discussing a rivalry, and as such WP:NRIVALRY is not met. Article was recreated after being deleted in a earlier deletion discussion and while this version has more sourcing, it still does not have sources to meet the notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, Florida, and Indiana. Let'srun (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak Delete No sources seem to cover the rivalry in-depth. The sheer number of routine coverage articles seems like a WP:REFBOMB, so it's difficult to say for sure whether all 100+ sources have no significant coverage. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clear pass of WP:NRIVALRY from my perspective. As much as I've supported getting rid of a number of rivalry articles, I can't fathom deleting one about two division rivals who have played each other twice a year for 23 years. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NRIVALRY requires GNG level coverage discussing the rivalry in-depth. Which sources do you thing cover this series as a rivalry? Let'srun (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert on NFL rivalries, but a quick search in Newspapers.com reveals many sources discussing the pairing as a rivalry. E.g., (1) "Colts, Jaguars renew rivalry", (2) "Colts-Jaguars South rivalry getting intense" (part 1/part 2), (3) "Rivalry has evolved quickly", (4) "this series has emerged as the division's best rivalry", (5) "Young rivalry gets stirred up", (6) "Colts' 'rivalry' fires up Jags" - early article discussing factors (part 1/part 2), (7) "There's no love lost: Plenty of bad blood between rivals Colts, Jaguars". Why doesn't such extensive coverage reporting on the rivalry show that there is or was a rivalry? Cbl62 (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think that most of these pieces are merely WP:ROUTINE game previews where the term 'rivalry' is used as a buzzword by journalists to try and get more people to read their paper, and do not cover the history of the purported 'rivalry' in-depth as needed to meet the guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62's sources. WP:NRIVALRY is one sentence deep and really shouldn't be used as the crutch for rivalry articles anyways. This would be a better way of calling it what it is User:Conyo14/Sports rivalries. Conyo14 (talk) 05:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is more of divisional opponents rather than rivalry, since the two have had different eras of success, I wouldn't say it's a fierce rivalry, but I wouldn't say it's worthy of it's own page.

I'd say a similar thing about the Jaguars-Texans rivalry. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the sources presented by Cbl62 appear to be sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources do you think provide WP:SIGCOV of the rivalry itself, beyond WP:ROUTINE game coverage/previews? Let'srun (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus here yet. A source review would br helpful. One thing I've seen over the years is that WP:ROUTINE is in the eye of the beholder.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some further notes on a couple of the sources cited above:

Source (3) is a three-column feature story from a highly reputable source (the Associated Press) expressly focused on the rivalry published under the headline "Rivalry has evolved quickly." It traces the history of "a trash-talking atmosphere", the recent history of past games, the "geeked up" approach of the players to facing each other, and concludes in no uncertain terms that "this series has emerged as the division's best rivalry."

Source (7) reviews the rivalry's 17-game history, the close finish in 13 of the 17 games, the "brutally competitive" nature of the games, the history of trash-talking including Colts referring to Jax as "our little brother", and a focus on the "bad blood" between the rivals ("They don't like us. We don't like them.")

Cbl62 (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided by Cb162. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Haven't voted previously. After weighing everything, this seems like a keeper. Cbl62 (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation in Huntington, West Virginia

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

Bringing to AFD following discussion at what Wikipedia is Not regarding this page being a violation WP:NOTGUIDE. Proposal is to either selectively merge content from this page into the main Huntington, West Virginia page and ~~delete~~ redirect this one, or remove the travel guide fluff and move this article to a new page entitled "List of parks in Huntington, West Virginia". nf utvol (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Amusement parks, Sports, and West Virginia. nf utvol (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you WP:MERGE content from one article into another, then we can't WP:DELETE the original, due to license requirements. So I think your proposal needs to be choosing between merge-and-redirect vs stripping it down to a list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, didn't think about the license aspect here. Modified accordingly. nf utvol (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikivoyage. It would be a pity to lose this material, but it clearly doesn't belong in WP. — hike395 (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a note at voy:en:Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub about this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Re-direct Keep the referenced stuff, just de-fluff and merge into the main article and then redirect.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 04:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support both proposed merge' content to Huntington and delete this article as proposed or alternate proposal of reducing this article down to a bare-bones list of parks (which are tolerated for several cities). Keeping the referenced stuff won't work because a lot of that material is still classic travel guide material. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You mean merge and redirect or reduce, I hope, as merging requires saving the article history for attribution (unless you copy the list of contributors, which is cumbersome and less useful). I did link the version that was current at time of nomination from voy:Talk:Huntington (West Virginia), so that anybody working at that article on Wikivoyage can merge in useful parts as appropriate. –LPfi (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki per hike395. Ré union! 06:14, 3 May 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haryana Olympic Association

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

Fails GNG; there are little sources directly about this article, especially reliable. What little info already here is poorly cited. GoldRomean (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, Olympics, and Haryana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:12, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 28 April 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.

2016–17 Młoda Liga

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

Fails to meet the requirements set forth by WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Relies exclusively on primary sources and is being used as simply a database for standings and scores. WP:NOTSTATS. There is no indication of significant coverage of this topic. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Volleyball, Europe, and Poland. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Notaoffensivename (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

College Football Data Warehouse

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

Fails WP:GNG. Citations show no significant coverage of this defunct website. Reliable sources sometimes use the site's data: "According to the College Football Data Warehouse...". But I cannot find any sources that offer WP:SIGCOV of the website itself. PK-WIKI (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was one of the largest and most reliable sources of statistical information on the history of college football (and it remains accessible through the Internet Archives). Major news outlets long relied on it as a "go to" source for historical information on the sport. E.g., Chicago Tribune (reviewing CFDW's findings on the use of interim head coaches), The Montgomery Advertiser (dscussing CFDW's use of the National Championship Foundation to reconstruct history and choose national champions); The New York Times, USA Today, The Philadelphia Inquirer. Cleveland Plain Dealer, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, The Vancouver Sun, The Orlando Sentinel. As set forth in the article, CFDW has also been widely cited in books on college football history and in scholarly journals. Further, a review at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Reliable sources confirmed: "Not only has this website has proven time and again to be a reliable source of information, but it is maintained by an established expert on the topic and is relevant to the field." Given how widely cited the database is, it would do a disservice to Wikipedia to delete the information that has been developed about its background, its creators, and its unfortunate demise. Cbl62 (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those citations provide barely any coverage of the website, let alone significant coverage.
These are the complete mentions of CFDW in those sources:
The only information that can be gleaned from any of those sources comes from the New York Times piece: that CFDW is a "website" and that David DeLassus is a proprietor.

WP:SIGCOV states "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

These are all trivial mentions at best. PK-WIKI (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources provided by cbl62 appear to contain the necessary WP:SIGCOV of the website to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 03:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC) [reply]
Where are you seeing WP:SIGCOV in those sources? The citations only say that "College Football Data Warehouse" was used as a source for each article. They contain basically no details at all about CFDW itself. PK-WIKI (talk) 04:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CFDW is a major information repository/resource. It has not only been cited regularly as a reliable source by major media outlets, scholarly journals, and books; it is also cited as a source in hundreds (thousands?) of Wikipedia articles and is recognized here as a reliable source. Deleting the article, which provides background information and context on the database, simply does not improve Wikipedia. I don't recall ever relying on WP:IAR in 18 years working on Wikipedia, but this is a case where it definitely applies: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Cbl62 (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that the subject has been widely cited in books on college football history and in scholarly journals, such as the Journal of Sports Economics, the Utah Law Review, the Tulsa Law Review, the Oklahoma Law Review, and Sports Law, is proof of notability. The points made by Cbl62, all of which are valid, also favor keeping the article. In addition, this article is a valuable source of information, which if lost would be detrimental to Wikipedia. Jeff in CA (talk) 10:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Projectify We have several keep votes already here, but PK-WIKI's central point remains unchallenged: there has been no substantial coverage of the College Football Data Warehouse itself to establish it as a notable subject. Its use as a source in books, newspapers, and journals and establishes it a reliable source (at least in the past), but not clearly as a notable subject. Compare, for example, with Baseball Reference, which was the subject of a 2015 article in Rolling Stone (here). We having nothing of that sort for CFDW. I also have my doubts that CFWD remains a quality tertiary source now that it is defunct and has not been updated in several years, and therefore does not reflect any of the error-checking and de-bugging against primary and secondary sources that we editors have performed here in editing Wikipedia in recent years. In the early to mid 2010s, I sent David DeLassus over 100 emails regarding errors I found on his website, and he made corrections accordingly. But that obviously stopped once the site went effectively defunct nearly a decade ago. To that point, I have been removing references to CFDW wherever they are redundant or can be replaced with other suitable sources. I plan to eventually remove all the references to CFDW, if possible. But given CFDW's history as a reliable source and frequent citation here on Wikipedia, I think this article should be preserved in some form. A WikiProject College football project page seems like the best fit. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with moving it to the internal Wikipedia:WikiProject College football space. That page would be far more useful than the current article, as we could discuss the history/authorship/reliability/sourcing issues you mention that are inappropriate for mainspace. PK-WIKI (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the suggesstion from Jweiss11. Let'srun (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further comment regarding moving to projectspace?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as incredibly widely cited media outlet. It’s well established that media doesn’t cover other media in the same way it covers the subjects themselves. WilsonP NYC (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WilsonP makes an incredibly good point. And very few media outlets have such a long history of being cited as a reliable source to the extent we see here with CFDW being cited in the most reputable newspapers in America in addition to books and academic journals. Cbl62 (talk) 05:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response Among the Wikipedia articles on college football, for the past several years, mentions of and citations to CFDW have (for reasons not related to WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV) been removed from articles and lists by:
- replacing, within a table, a column that relied on CFDW for inclusion criteria,
- deleting from another article the very same table that appears in this subject article,
- deleting a section about CFDW,
- (per a statement by one of the respected editors above) removing references to CFDW, with a mission to eventually remove all references to CFDW from Wikipedia.

For some of these removals, I began a discussion to object to and resolve the disagreements, and in the end, I relented based on good faith considerations. However, the pursuit to remove CFDW wherever it is mentioned is beginning to seem like a targeted effort to inflict upon CFDW a "death by a thousand cuts", and I am growing weary in general, not to mention becoming older by the day. And I mean no disrespect of any other editors.

Perhaps there is an effort to eradicate all mention of CFDW from Wikipedia; I don't know. I will predict that, if this article is moved to Wikiproject space, then in relatively short time, someone (in disregard of the level of project activity and collaboration it might receive) will say, "The project never really got off the ground," and nominate it for MFD. That could well be a nail in the coffin of CFDW on Wikipedia, and people will celebrate that Wikipedia policies prevailed and therefore that CFDW suffered a deserved fate.

Therefore, I agree with Cbl62 that, if ever there was a reason for implementing WP:IAR to keep an article, this is it. Jeff in CA (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an answer to that, from my perspective CFDW was extremely over-represented (to the point of clearly violating WP:NPOV / WP:WEIGHT) in the articles you mention. This probably comes from being one of the top college football websites available in the years immediately following the founding of Wikipedia. I am rather critical of their opinion on "recognized national champions" (as are you?) and I believe per our evolved adherence to NPOV it was right to remove them from the Wikipedia articles you mention.

CFDW is/was perhaps a reliable source on records and statistical data (although I do have my doubts due to it being WP:SELFPUBLISHED). My issue with using it for this, though, is that the authors of CFDW do not cite any sources for their information. They were surely just drawing it from athletic department publications and newspaper clippings, which is exactly what we now do here at Wikipedia. This was obviously MUCH harder in the time of microfilm and the early days of the internet, so I commend them for their research. But today, in the age of Newspapers.com and other great archives of contemporary reporting, I would rather just mostly skip the step of citing a random self-published website that has been offline for a decade and that may contain forever-uncorrected errors.

I myself have absolutely no intention of deleting a CFDW page in the CFB wikiproject space. I would probably be one of the primary authors. I would have expanded the mainspace article, but unfortunately there appears to be zero significant coverage ever written about the website. If either of the authors are shown to be notable or published, I will consider writing an article on them. PK-WIKI (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find Jeff in CA's suggestion that if we projectify the CFDW article, it will soon be MfD'd to be credible. We have lots of project pages that have been around for years, including several that I created (like Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Coaching trees, Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Official college football guides, Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Archived yearbooks, Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Media guide errors). I don't recall any of these every being MfD'd. If someone were to MfD a projectified CFWD article, you can count on my keep vote there. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus on whether to move to projectspace or keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 14:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Projectify, there just isn't enough significant coverage to get us over the line... The USEDBYOTHERS argument is a weak one and overall does not surmount the lack of serious in depth coverage of the topic. The argument that the page not existing will affect its use as a source is a curious one but appears spurious and even if it were true would have no bearing on a deletion discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Athletics at the 1998 Commonwealth Games – Men's javelin throw

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

Non-notable javelin throw event, i was unable to find any sources about it. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We generally consider these event articles as valid splits from the main page (which would otherwise become way too long). If deleted this would be, I think, the only event in the history of the Commonwealth Games to not have an article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Sport of athletics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, keep per WP:NOLYMPIC "*Significant coverage is likely to exist for events at individual Summer or Winter Olympic or Paralympic Games, e.g., Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's individual road race or Skeleton at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Women's", and this extends to most international Games and Championships as well. There is also SIGCOV in this specific instance to prove the point, e.g. "Silver lining as England team mount final push" or "Backley spurred on by upset". Lastly I'll just say that because this is a list article, per WP:NLIST sometimes lists can be kept because they're useful navigational aids without demonstrating notability. --Habst (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Habst. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Lists that are unsourced, single-sourced, or single primary sourced, existing as an exception to WP:NLIST which states, Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. 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, per the above guidelines; and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists.. This sort of mirrors Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists.

Review: Any exception[s], if actually allowed by consensus (depending on the list), need to be one of three, for Information, navigation, or Development. I am not sure an unsourced or poorly sourced break-away list containing the names of living people qualifies. Consideration, of course, has to be the membership criteria.

While attempting to validate a list, policies and guidelines should probably at least be considered. Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists includes, "Citing sources": Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources.

Some editors may attempt to down-play the Notability guideline. The opening sentence states, "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." The actual opening paragraph states, Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice".

Wikipedia gauges notability and being "worthy of notice" by verifiability: All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. Additionally, four types of information must be accompanied by an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Please note #2 and #3:

direct quotations,
material whose verifiability has been challenged,
material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged, and
contentious material about living and recently deceased persons.

The note on numbers 2 and 3 is because any assumption of inherited or inherent notability is a fallacy. Alright, that's not the note, but true. Anyway, an article, or list, that remains published, either by silence on the subject, or even IAR, is subject to consensus and the fact that consensus can change.

The mention that other stuff exists is usually not a good thing to bring up at AFD. A good discussion for an exemption would be "valid splits from the main page (which would otherwise become way too long)." If a supposed parent article is not sourced or barely sourced, I am not open to considering a "valid split". I have ran across several of these. Articles like List of European Athletics Championships records has sources and also have many "splits" listed as details, which might be a consideration. There should be a link to the "main" article. Articles like European Running Championships with two sources counted as one and likely not advancing notability would not be a good candidate for consideration..

Summation: To claim exemption from notability or verifiability requires silence from other editors, IAR, that is dependent on consensus, and must consider the fact that consensus can change. Any silence ends when there is a challenge, so "likely to exist" becomes moot, and is satisfied by proof in the form of references, specifically inline citations. It would be better to supply a reference and the link to the main article to keep some editor from going on a crusade. It would be sad if the "history of the Commonwealth Games" were upset. -- Otr500 (talk) 08:52, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this AI? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would recommend the addition of at least one reliable source to the article per WP:V. The present one is insecure.

Otr500, you need to abide by due process at AfD by providing a concise rationale that may include links to guidelines. I doubt if anyone will make time to read your input here, and the reaction by BeanieFan11 is understandable. Spartathenian (talk) 06:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added the above sources to the article, thanks. --Habst (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Habst. Spartathenian (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Recommend immediate closure as the "keep" arguments and actions are policy-compliant, and the nomination reveals a lack of experience in subjects of this type. I would close it myself but for earlier involvement. Thanks. Spartathenian (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Struck. See below - Firstly, I do not understand the argument that this is a list article. It is an article about a single event in the athletics section of a single competition in a single year. I suppose it "lists" the distances thrown by competitors but that is not really a list so much as a demonstration that this subject only has database listing evidence. No, the piece about Backley's throw does not show that the event is independently notable. The games are notable, but the single event is a spin-off of the games article. There is no clear reason why that is necessary. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, but it is not a results database, and that is all this page is. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Years ago, it was decided to spin-off the results as otherwise the main page would get way too long. If deleted, this would be, out of the thousands of events in its history, the sole Commonwealth Games event missing an article. That would be nonsensical. If we're saying that its not encyclopedic they need to be discussed as a group, not just one, as that would leave a very awkward gap. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking only to the list classification, historically these articles have been classified by the community as lists due to the reasoning you point out; see Category:List-Class Athletics articles for hundreds of other examples. I only chose the first two newspapers.com results but there are many others about the event if you just search the names of the medalists in quotes. These javelin throws only happened once every four years and they were a very important and highly-discussed sports match, second only to the Olympics. --Habst (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs further discussion to establish if this should be treated separately from other Games articles
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartathenian (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The WP:NOLYMPIC position quoted above extends to other top-level championships including the Commonwealth Games. It is true that the Games as a whole have an over-arching level of notability as they are a major sporting event, but each individual competition within the Games is also notable in its own right. In practice, as BeanieFan11 rightly pointed out earlier, individual event articles are maintained as valid forks from the Games article for reasons that must include pagelength and readership convenience. Spartathenian (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NOLYMPIC suitably makes the case that the Commonwealth Games would be notable, but there are 45 disciplines at the Commonwealth games, of which 26 are core disciplines. The relevant discipline for Men's Javelin is, in fact, Athletics (a core discipline). The Athletics discipline consists of nearly 70 events, of which the Men's javelin throw is just one. A page on the Commonwealth Games in any year it is held is certainly notable. That does not mean that for every Commonwealth Games we should also presume there are many hundreds of pages of notable events for every one of the 45 disciplines. There is clearly no such presumption intended nor implied. The only thing that matters would be secondary sources telling us about the 1998 men's javelin throw, discussing the event, and explaining why the event is enduringly notable. Such coverage would need to be WP:SUSTAINED, and not just primary reports of the results of the competition itself. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy, I understand your frustration but I think part of the reason these guidelines have worked so well is because nobody has been able to find a case disproving the rule yet, at least not for a javelin throw at the Commonwealth Games. In my search earlier I saw newspapers that do exactly what you describe about the 1998 Commonwealth javelin, I can't speak for every event but these ones at least were a big deal. Of course, another explanation is that these articles are classified as lists which can be treated differently w.r.t. notability per WP:NLIST. --Habst (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Were the guidelines suggesting that every single event spawns hundreds of pages, then the guidelines would not be working well. But the guidelines don't say that. This page is a spin-off. There is no evidence of independent notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The number of pages created (whether hundreds, thousands, or zero) isn't an indication that a guideline is working or not working. The indication would be whether community consensus was achieved, which by and large it is as demonstrated in this AfD for international games coverage. --Habst (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per additions by Habst. I agree with the user Habst here. It meets significant relevance and notability. WP:N and WP:V HilssaMansen19 (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is not about a small sports event respectfully as coverage is there. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Commonwealth Games events are notable. Svartner (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - I have struck my delete, because there is no point arguing the toss on this single event when, as Habst points out above, these pages exist for all events in all games. Deleting this page will make very little impact in that situation, and, in fact, any resolution would require very large amounts of effort. To be clear, no evidence has been given that this event is independently notable. We have no sources at all beyond the results, and nothing to put on this page (and all such pages) other than results tables. There were 283 events at the last Commonwealth Games, and I think that doubles as there are men's and women's events. That is an enormous number of pages sourced only to the primary sourced medals table, and in my review, this is exactly what is found on all of these I looked at. Is Wikipedia here for duplicating the medals tables these pages are sourced from? Is a semiplagiaristic results database what the encyclopaedia is all about? Perhaps not. But there also might be marginal utility for those who cannot otherwise search for the official record. In any case, any attempt to resolve this situation would need to consider all pages at once, and this AfD is not the place to consider that. If the nom. wants to start and RfC on the matter, please ping me in, but otherwise there is nothing to be gained by deleting this lone permastub. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important for the record to contest that no evidence has been given that the event is notable; the above linked articles provide prose-based SIGCOV of the event and they're far from the only ones. These prose-based non-database sources were added to the article, so it's not true that there are no sources beyond the results. Also, w.r.t. plagiarism, it's important to note that simple facts like sports results or temperature data or election/polling results are generally not copyrightable and are in the public domain in the U.S. regardless of whether there is a copyright notice on the original source. --Habst (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two short newspaper reports of the event are primary sources. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Sources must be secondary to count towards notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Table football (disambiguation)

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

Unnecessary dab page. Nothing listed in this page with "Table football". Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing ambiguous about this list of related variations on a concept. BD2412 T 01:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda keep Seems useful enough to me. Govvy (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a reasonable list of games that can be referred to as "table football." Frank Anchor 14:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Govvy, seems sensible and useful. Giant Snowman 17:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is reasonable that someone could refer to any of these as table football. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't a useful disambig. There's also Table football. -- mikeblas (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only Penny football claims it's also referred to as table football, but the closest source doesn't support that. These entries should all go into Table football#See also. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The keep argument here appears to be that the list is "useful enough" or "reasonable", but those reasons don't comply with WP:DP. As explained at WP:DAB, a disambiguation page is used "when a potential article title is ambiguous", and not otherwise. In the same guideline, WP:PTM asserts that "a disambiguation page is not a search index", and links "should not be included... where there is no significant risk of confusion between them". Spartathenian (talk) 09:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I don't think this really ameliorates much confusion, and don't see indication that multiple of these topics are referred to as table football. I think the hatnote already present on the main page and its 'see also' section are sufficient here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, right now this looks like a possible "No consensus" closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Changed my earlier comment, and now support deletion because the page entries are not disambiguations. Spartathenian (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sports-related Proposed Deletion nominations

Sports-related Categories for discussion

none at present

American football

K'ameronn Joseph

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

Non-notable Youtuber and American Footballer. Fails all relevant notability guidelines. Ednabrenze (talk) 06:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, Internet, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Lochow

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

College athlete that does not appear to meet the criteria laid out in WP:NCOLLATH or in WP:GNG. The coverage is limited to stats pages, routine local coverage of high school sports games the subject played in, a single human interest story from a local Dayton, Ohio news outlet, and local coverage of winning an award from the West Virginia Sportswriters Association. Appears at first glance as a mostly fluff page written by an acquaintance of the subject. nf utvol (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. nf utvol (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Ohio. Shellwood (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nom. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colts–Jaguars rivalry

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not appear to have coverage from sources discussing a rivalry, and as such WP:NRIVALRY is not met. Article was recreated after being deleted in a earlier deletion discussion and while this version has more sourcing, it still does not have sources to meet the notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, Florida, and Indiana. Let'srun (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak Delete No sources seem to cover the rivalry in-depth. The sheer number of routine coverage articles seems like a WP:REFBOMB, so it's difficult to say for sure whether all 100+ sources have no significant coverage. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clear pass of WP:NRIVALRY from my perspective. As much as I've supported getting rid of a number of rivalry articles, I can't fathom deleting one about two division rivals who have played each other twice a year for 23 years. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NRIVALRY requires GNG level coverage discussing the rivalry in-depth. Which sources do you thing cover this series as a rivalry? Let'srun (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert on NFL rivalries, but a quick search in Newspapers.com reveals many sources discussing the pairing as a rivalry. E.g., (1) "Colts, Jaguars renew rivalry", (2) "Colts-Jaguars South rivalry getting intense" (part 1/part 2), (3) "Rivalry has evolved quickly", (4) "this series has emerged as the division's best rivalry", (5) "Young rivalry gets stirred up", (6) "Colts' 'rivalry' fires up Jags" - early article discussing factors (part 1/part 2), (7) "There's no love lost: Plenty of bad blood between rivals Colts, Jaguars". Why doesn't such extensive coverage reporting on the rivalry show that there is or was a rivalry? Cbl62 (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think that most of these pieces are merely WP:ROUTINE game previews where the term 'rivalry' is used as a buzzword by journalists to try and get more people to read their paper, and do not cover the history of the purported 'rivalry' in-depth as needed to meet the guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62's sources. WP:NRIVALRY is one sentence deep and really shouldn't be used as the crutch for rivalry articles anyways. This would be a better way of calling it what it is User:Conyo14/Sports rivalries. Conyo14 (talk) 05:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is more of divisional opponents rather than rivalry, since the two have had different eras of success, I wouldn't say it's a fierce rivalry, but I wouldn't say it's worthy of it's own page.

I'd say a similar thing about the Jaguars-Texans rivalry. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the sources presented by Cbl62 appear to be sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources do you think provide WP:SIGCOV of the rivalry itself, beyond WP:ROUTINE game coverage/previews? Let'srun (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus here yet. A source review would br helpful. One thing I've seen over the years is that WP:ROUTINE is in the eye of the beholder.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some further notes on a couple of the sources cited above:

Source (3) is a three-column feature story from a highly reputable source (the Associated Press) expressly focused on the rivalry published under the headline "Rivalry has evolved quickly." It traces the history of "a trash-talking atmosphere", the recent history of past games, the "geeked up" approach of the players to facing each other, and concludes in no uncertain terms that "this series has emerged as the division's best rivalry."

Source (7) reviews the rivalry's 17-game history, the close finish in 13 of the 17 games, the "brutally competitive" nature of the games, the history of trash-talking including Colts referring to Jax as "our little brother", and a focus on the "bad blood" between the rivals ("They don't like us. We don't like them.")

Cbl62 (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided by Cb162. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Haven't voted previously. After weighing everything, this seems like a keeper. Cbl62 (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

College Football Data Warehouse

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

Fails WP:GNG. Citations show no significant coverage of this defunct website. Reliable sources sometimes use the site's data: "According to the College Football Data Warehouse...". But I cannot find any sources that offer WP:SIGCOV of the website itself. PK-WIKI (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was one of the largest and most reliable sources of statistical information on the history of college football (and it remains accessible through the Internet Archives). Major news outlets long relied on it as a "go to" source for historical information on the sport. E.g., Chicago Tribune (reviewing CFDW's findings on the use of interim head coaches), The Montgomery Advertiser (dscussing CFDW's use of the National Championship Foundation to reconstruct history and choose national champions); The New York Times, USA Today, The Philadelphia Inquirer. Cleveland Plain Dealer, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, The Vancouver Sun, The Orlando Sentinel. As set forth in the article, CFDW has also been widely cited in books on college football history and in scholarly journals. Further, a review at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Reliable sources confirmed: "Not only has this website has proven time and again to be a reliable source of information, but it is maintained by an established expert on the topic and is relevant to the field." Given how widely cited the database is, it would do a disservice to Wikipedia to delete the information that has been developed about its background, its creators, and its unfortunate demise. Cbl62 (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those citations provide barely any coverage of the website, let alone significant coverage.
These are the complete mentions of CFDW in those sources:
The only information that can be gleaned from any of those sources comes from the New York Times piece: that CFDW is a "website" and that David DeLassus is a proprietor.

WP:SIGCOV states "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

These are all trivial mentions at best. PK-WIKI (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources provided by cbl62 appear to contain the necessary WP:SIGCOV of the website to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 03:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC) [reply]
Where are you seeing WP:SIGCOV in those sources? The citations only say that "College Football Data Warehouse" was used as a source for each article. They contain basically no details at all about CFDW itself. PK-WIKI (talk) 04:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CFDW is a major information repository/resource. It has not only been cited regularly as a reliable source by major media outlets, scholarly journals, and books; it is also cited as a source in hundreds (thousands?) of Wikipedia articles and is recognized here as a reliable source. Deleting the article, which provides background information and context on the database, simply does not improve Wikipedia. I don't recall ever relying on WP:IAR in 18 years working on Wikipedia, but this is a case where it definitely applies: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Cbl62 (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that the subject has been widely cited in books on college football history and in scholarly journals, such as the Journal of Sports Economics, the Utah Law Review, the Tulsa Law Review, the Oklahoma Law Review, and Sports Law, is proof of notability. The points made by Cbl62, all of which are valid, also favor keeping the article. In addition, this article is a valuable source of information, which if lost would be detrimental to Wikipedia. Jeff in CA (talk) 10:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Projectify We have several keep votes already here, but PK-WIKI's central point remains unchallenged: there has been no substantial coverage of the College Football Data Warehouse itself to establish it as a notable subject. Its use as a source in books, newspapers, and journals and establishes it a reliable source (at least in the past), but not clearly as a notable subject. Compare, for example, with Baseball Reference, which was the subject of a 2015 article in Rolling Stone (here). We having nothing of that sort for CFDW. I also have my doubts that CFWD remains a quality tertiary source now that it is defunct and has not been updated in several years, and therefore does not reflect any of the error-checking and de-bugging against primary and secondary sources that we editors have performed here in editing Wikipedia in recent years. In the early to mid 2010s, I sent David DeLassus over 100 emails regarding errors I found on his website, and he made corrections accordingly. But that obviously stopped once the site went effectively defunct nearly a decade ago. To that point, I have been removing references to CFDW wherever they are redundant or can be replaced with other suitable sources. I plan to eventually remove all the references to CFDW, if possible. But given CFDW's history as a reliable source and frequent citation here on Wikipedia, I think this article should be preserved in some form. A WikiProject College football project page seems like the best fit. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with moving it to the internal Wikipedia:WikiProject College football space. That page would be far more useful than the current article, as we could discuss the history/authorship/reliability/sourcing issues you mention that are inappropriate for mainspace. PK-WIKI (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the suggesstion from Jweiss11. Let'srun (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further comment regarding moving to projectspace?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as incredibly widely cited media outlet. It’s well established that media doesn’t cover other media in the same way it covers the subjects themselves. WilsonP NYC (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WilsonP makes an incredibly good point. And very few media outlets have such a long history of being cited as a reliable source to the extent we see here with CFDW being cited in the most reputable newspapers in America in addition to books and academic journals. Cbl62 (talk) 05:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response Among the Wikipedia articles on college football, for the past several years, mentions of and citations to CFDW have (for reasons not related to WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV) been removed from articles and lists by:
- replacing, within a table, a column that relied on CFDW for inclusion criteria,
- deleting from another article the very same table that appears in this subject article,
- deleting a section about CFDW,
- (per a statement by one of the respected editors above) removing references to CFDW, with a mission to eventually remove all references to CFDW from Wikipedia.

For some of these removals, I began a discussion to object to and resolve the disagreements, and in the end, I relented based on good faith considerations. However, the pursuit to remove CFDW wherever it is mentioned is beginning to seem like a targeted effort to inflict upon CFDW a "death by a thousand cuts", and I am growing weary in general, not to mention becoming older by the day. And I mean no disrespect of any other editors.

Perhaps there is an effort to eradicate all mention of CFDW from Wikipedia; I don't know. I will predict that, if this article is moved to Wikiproject space, then in relatively short time, someone (in disregard of the level of project activity and collaboration it might receive) will say, "The project never really got off the ground," and nominate it for MFD. That could well be a nail in the coffin of CFDW on Wikipedia, and people will celebrate that Wikipedia policies prevailed and therefore that CFDW suffered a deserved fate.

Therefore, I agree with Cbl62 that, if ever there was a reason for implementing WP:IAR to keep an article, this is it. Jeff in CA (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an answer to that, from my perspective CFDW was extremely over-represented (to the point of clearly violating WP:NPOV / WP:WEIGHT) in the articles you mention. This probably comes from being one of the top college football websites available in the years immediately following the founding of Wikipedia. I am rather critical of their opinion on "recognized national champions" (as are you?) and I believe per our evolved adherence to NPOV it was right to remove them from the Wikipedia articles you mention.

CFDW is/was perhaps a reliable source on records and statistical data (although I do have my doubts due to it being WP:SELFPUBLISHED). My issue with using it for this, though, is that the authors of CFDW do not cite any sources for their information. They were surely just drawing it from athletic department publications and newspaper clippings, which is exactly what we now do here at Wikipedia. This was obviously MUCH harder in the time of microfilm and the early days of the internet, so I commend them for their research. But today, in the age of Newspapers.com and other great archives of contemporary reporting, I would rather just mostly skip the step of citing a random self-published website that has been offline for a decade and that may contain forever-uncorrected errors.

I myself have absolutely no intention of deleting a CFDW page in the CFB wikiproject space. I would probably be one of the primary authors. I would have expanded the mainspace article, but unfortunately there appears to be zero significant coverage ever written about the website. If either of the authors are shown to be notable or published, I will consider writing an article on them. PK-WIKI (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find Jeff in CA's suggestion that if we projectify the CFDW article, it will soon be MfD'd to be credible. We have lots of project pages that have been around for years, including several that I created (like Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Coaching trees, Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Official college football guides, Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Archived yearbooks, Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Media guide errors). I don't recall any of these every being MfD'd. If someone were to MfD a projectified CFWD article, you can count on my keep vote there. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus on whether to move to projectspace or keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 14:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Projectify, there just isn't enough significant coverage to get us over the line... The USEDBYOTHERS argument is a weak one and overall does not surmount the lack of serious in depth coverage of the topic. The argument that the page not existing will affect its use as a source is a curious one but appears spurious and even if it were true would have no bearing on a deletion discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:59, 4 May 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

Michael Byrne (baseball)

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

fails WP:GNG; I did some searching and was not able to find significant coverage in any reliable source Joeykai (talk) 05:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Baseball. Joeykai (talk) 05:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he arguably might pass GNG, but I don't think we need to keep historical biographies on baseball players who never reached the highest level unless the GNG pass is clearly non-trivial/routine, and he didn't get any significant coverage outside of his local area. SportingFlyer T·C 09:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG is met, here is 2025 coverage I will add. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's clearly routine. SportingFlyer T·C 18:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The 2025 article shows continued notability, should meet BASIC or athletic notability requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, since I understand the point about the 2025 article, but I couldn't find anything more than just that And yes, I know that in the past I claimed to be unfamiliar with the deletion policy, but I am now. JTZegers (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The 2025 article brought up by Muboshgu is non-routine SIGCOV, but that alone is not enough to pass GNG, which generally requires multiple such references. Willing to reconsider if more coverage is made available so please ping me. Frank Anchor 21:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a local transactional report about him getting hired. SportingFlyer T·C 23:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree strongly with this assessment as it also includes several paragraphs of significant content from his playing career in addition to the routine details of a transactional report. However, I am still at delete as explained in my above !vote. Frank Anchor 12:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he had multiple articles about him in college, plus the 2025 article that Muboshgu found, which is not routine, so passes GNG. Rlendog (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nashville Vols Opening Day starting pitchers

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

I do not see multiple independent reliable sources which indicate that WP:LISTN is met. Without such, it seems this list also fails WP:GNG. It must be shown why this deserves to be a standalone list, as opposed to part of the team's article or merged into List of Nashville Vols seasons. Just because individual parts of the list can be cited, it does not mean that the sum total of the parts are notable as a list. Further, I found no previous discussion that this should be be split from the team's article. Flibirigit (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Baseball, and Tennessee. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of who pitched for a defunct minor league baseball team on the opening day of each of their seasons is totally pointless. This is an encyclopedia not a fan site. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the seasons page, the opening day starter isn't unimportant but it does not qualify for its own page. SportingFlyer T·C 09:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As list creator, just delete it and don't merge (it doesn't fit with any other team list or article). NatureBoyMD (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nashville Sounds Opening Day starting pitchers

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No indication of meeting WP:NLIST. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Baseball, and Tennessee. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge I do not see multiple independent reliable sources which indicate that WP:LISTN is met. It seems this list also fails WP:GNG. It must be shown why this deserves to be a standalone list, as opposed to part of the team's article or merged into List of Nashville Sounds seasons. Just because individual parts of the list can be cited, it does not mean that the sum total of the parts are notable as a list. Further, I found no previous discussion that this should be be split from the team's article. Flibirigit (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge This looks like WP:OR as this doesn't really pass GNG as a list. It's a featured list, but no one commented on the fact there's no secondary sources covering this. SportingFlyer T·C 16:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of who pitched for a minor league baseball team on the opening day of each of their seasons is totally pointless. This is an encyclopedia not a fan site. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As list creator, just delete it and don't merge (it doesn't fit with any other team list or article). NatureBoyMD (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scranton/Wilkes-Barre RailRiders Opening Day starting pitchers

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

I do not see multiple independent reliable sources which indicate that WP:LISTN is met. The only non-database source which lists opening day starters for the team is this story posted on a rain date. It seems this list also fails WP:GNG. It must be shown why this deserves to be a standalone list, as opposed to part of the team's article. Just because individual parts of the list can be cited, it does not mean that the sum total of the parts are notable as a list. Further, I found no previous discussion that this should be be split from the team's article. Flibirigit (talk) 02:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flib, thanks for the feedback once again. I see your point. If there aren’t multiple independent sources showing notability beyond basic stats, and no prior consensus to split this off, then a standalone list may not be justified. I’d support merging it back into the team article unless stronger sourcing is found. TBJ10RH (talk) 02:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Baseball, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this looks like original research. There's no reason it can't be hosted somewhere, but it does not appear wiki-notable. I doubt any minor league opening day pitcher list would be. SportingFlyer T·C 11:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is actually 1 list that is featured here, List of Nashville Sounds Opening Day starting pitchers. I can try and find newspaper links to old opening day starts for the railriders/yankees/red barons. TBJ10RH (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That may be featured, but I'd !vote to delete that for the same reason. SportingFlyer T·C 12:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have now nominated it for deletion, SportingFlyer. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Possible merger targets for the information are List of Scranton/Wilkes-Barre RailRiders seasons or the team's article. Flibirigit (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That could affect the list's current featured list nomination however TBJ10RH (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Failing this nomination will also fail a featured list nomination. Flibirigit (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of who pitched for a minor league baseball team on the opening day of each of their seasons is totally pointless. This is an encyclopedia not a fan site. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lehigh Valley IronPigs Opening Day starting pitchers

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No indication of meeting WP:NLIST. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Baseball, and Pennsylvania. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. This is pure trivia/fancruft about a minor league baseball club. No SIGCOV on the topic. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. Cbl62 (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The list documents a recurring, specific role that’s consistently covered in local news and team media. As a yearly thing, Opening Day starters are a recognized part of a team’s season narrative. They attention every year from sources like MiLB.com, and team press releases. here’s nothing random or fancrufty about it if I am going to be honest with you. If the issue is sourcing, that can be fixed. I think there’s enough here to improve the article rather than delete it. Same thing applies with the other one.
TBJ10RH (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You would need multiple independent reliable sources providing in-depth coverage of the topic. Routine news coverage announcing who will be that year's opening-day pitcher does not suffice. Cbl62 (talk) 01:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That can be easily fixable but validating the page for AFD is a bit too much in my opinion. TBJ10RH (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge. There are no independent reliable sources in this list which indicate that WP:LISTN is met. In other words, it must be shown why this deserves to be a standalone list, as opposed to part of the team's article. Just because individual parts of the list can be cited, it does not mean that the sum total of the parts are notable as a list. Further, I found no previous discussion that this should be be split from the team's article. Flibirigit (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Possible merger targets for the information are List of Lehigh Valley IronPigs seasons or the team's article. Flibirigit (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of historic rosters may be relevant, but I don't see why opening day is significant. Reywas92^Talk 02:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, I get it. But, Opening Day starters hold special weight in baseball. Even at the minor league level, teams and media highlight who gets the ball to start the season. Usually the local papers, MiLB.com, and team press releases often call attention to it. It’s more than just a roster detail. If the concern is that the article doesn’t yet show why it's significant, that feels like something we can fix through edits. Maybe by adding brief context or citations. Not by removing the article entirely. This seems like a case where cleanup or improvement would serve Wikipedia better than deletion. TBJ10RH (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: MiLB.com and team press releases are not "independent" and have no bearing on whether the topic passes the GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbl62 (talk • contribs)

In Major League Baseball, opening day starters are discussed frequently in independent sources. I cannot say the same for the minor leagues. Please note that coverage by teams, is not independent, nor considered reliable for encyclopedia purpose. Flibirigit (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that going forward on the articles later. Thank you TBJ10RH (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of who pitched for a minor league baseball team on the opening day of each of their seasons is totally pointless. This is an encyclopedia not a fan site. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we are not a free web host for baseball trivia. There are lots of other places for that, but not a charity that does not take advertising. Bearian (talk) 07:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gwinnett Stripers Opening Day starting pitchers

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No indication this passes WP:NLIST. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Baseball, and Georgia (U.S. state). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This is pure trivia/fancruft about a minor league baseball club. No SIGCOV on the topic. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. Cbl62 (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list documents a recurring, specific role that’s consistently covered in local news and team media. As a yearly thing, Opening Day starters are a recognized part of a team’s season narrative. They attention every year from sources like MiLB.com, Gwinnett Daily Post, and team press releases. here’s nothing random or fancrufty about it if I am going to be honest with you. If the issue is sourcing, that can be fixed. I think there’s enough here to improve the article rather than delete it. Same thing applies with the other one. TBJ10RH (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You would need multiple independent reliable sources providing in-depth coverage of the topic. Routine news coverage announcing who will be that year's opening-day pitcher does not suffice. Cbl62 (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That can be easily fixable but validating the page for AFD is a bit too much in my opinion. TBJ10RH (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's easly fixable, please provide the "Three best sources" (or even "two") that provide in depth coverage of the topic. Cbl62 (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge. There are no independent reliable sources in this list which indicate that WP:LISTN is met. In other words, it must be shown why this deserves to be a standalone list, as opposed to part of the team's article. Just because individual parts of the list can be cited, it does not mean that the sum total of the parts are notable as a list. Further, I found no previous discussion that this should be be split from the team's article. Flibirigit (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Possible merger targets for the information are List of Gwinnett Stripers seasons or the team's article. Flibirigit (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the list may lack a few independent sources, and I thank you for the feedback, however Opening Day starters are a recurring, notable tradition in baseball that's routinely covered by teams and local media. The list reflects that tradition, not just a collection of facts. It can be improved with context and sourcing, but that’s an editing issue, not a reason to delete. Splitting it from the main article makes sense given its focus and the precedent from similar baseball lists. If you truly have some problems with the article, I can make some changes to add more independent sources that could be deemed reliable although I may need a specific list of those. TBJ10RH (talk) 02:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In Major League Baseball, opening day starters are discussed frequently in independent sources. I cannot say the same for minor league. Please note that coverage by teams, is not independent, nor considered reliable for encyclopedia purpose. Flibirigit (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, thank you Flib TBJ10RH (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of who pitched for a minor league baseball team on the opening day of each of their seasons is totally pointless. This is an encyclopedia not a fan site. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - again, for the fans in the peanut gallery - we are not a free web host for baseball trivia. There are lots of other places for that, but not a charity that does not take advertising. Bearian (talk) 07:03, 5 May 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

Atlantic Coast Conference women's basketball Defensive Player of the Year

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

Author has created several award articles, but seems to be cited to almost entirely primary sources or sources from other schools. No independent coverage from what I can find Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Awards, and Basketball. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
del fails WP:SIGCOV. --Altenmann >talk 18:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024–25 in European women's basketball (A–K)

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

With this title, I would expect Information about the European competitions (for clubs or national teams), not a collection of results of national competitions which just happen to share a continent but are otherwise not related. Seems like a weird way to present these. Fram (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Basketball, Lists, and Europe. Fram (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Almost entirely a difficult to navigate collection of game results and WP:NOTDATABASE so I think this should be deleted. Division of the list by alphabetized country name is also strange; why not by league/division or similar? Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  What do I need to do improve it? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated:

JT Pettigrew

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

Contested WP:PROD by Sophisticatedevening - subject does not seem to be notable per WP:NATHLETE or WP:GNG. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Basketball, United States of America, and Illinois. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just gonna paste my orginal PROD rationale since there were no changes (or edit summary) given after it was contested: Subject has never participated in any professional or collegiate sports, not enough WP:SIGCOV from independent sources to satisfy WP:NATHLETE or WP:GNG. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 01:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Coolcrab5000: Please don't draftify (or move to draftspace) this article while it is in AFD. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article of which this discussion relates appears to have been deleted? Anxioustoavoid (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Maile66 just forgot to close. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 17:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging me. I have un-deleted it. I think my deletion was an error on my part. — Maile (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is WP:TOOSOON given he has not even started playing in the NCAA yet. No evidence he meets WP:GNG. --Mpen320 (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indication of notability is present under WP:YOUNGATH. Let'srun (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unremarkable child basketball player. GNG fail. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 12:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Nomination of 2025 CollegeInsider.com Postseason Tournament for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2025 CollegeInsider.com Postseason Tournament is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 CollegeInsider.com Postseason Tournament (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Taxman1913 (talk) 07:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

for occasional archiving

Bodybuilding

Boxing

Articles for deletion

Ilker Furat

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Boxing and Turkey. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Management, and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Categories

Cricket

Articles for deletion

Harry Christiani

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

Fails WP:GNG. I was unable to find anything. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 11:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 11:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and South America. Shellwood (talk) 11:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Brief mention in an unrelated memoir [5], but that's not enough. Sourcing in the article is rather thin as well. Oaktree b (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails notability and don't see any possible redirect targets either. Vestrian24Bio 12:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Zero WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand why List of Guyanese representative cricketers isn't a reasonable redirection target – it's even linked from the page as a see also. A short note could be added there to summarise what we know in addition to the note that is already in the table. This is a common ATD for articles about cricketers going back years, and retains the page history and attribution should detailed sourcing become available in the future and the article is re-created. I'd certainly redirect it Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tawfique Khan

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

Seems not meeting the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Cricket Somajyoti ✉ 08:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Bangladesh. Somajyoti ✉ 08:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Somajyoti's statement is correct, It's not notable enough. Macarius Ibne Mito (talk) 03:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails notability and don't see any possible redirect targets either. Vestrian24Bio 12:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not well-informed about the notability of this cricketer, but I support its deletion. I have serious concerns regarding the creation of this article. If we look at the draft, it was declined multiple times, yet it was later moved to article space by an editor whose very first edit was related to this draft. It's uncommon for a brand-new editor to discover such drafts on their own.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 15:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murtaza Hussain

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

Clearly fails WP:NATHLETE. Article created in 2007, no more WP:SIGCOV in 20 years that points to notability. Longhornsg (talk) 05:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Cricket, and Pakistan. Longhornsg (talk) 05:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to an appropriate list of players. Vestrian24Bio 11:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Vestrian24Bio, do you not think the sources added since the nomination demonstrate notability? We have a whole page dedicated to Hussain by the North-West Evening Mail (clearly SIGCOV). He represented Pakistan "A", so at some point was considered amongst the top 20 cricketers in Pakistan's most popular sport, and played for close to two decades. There will be sources in Urdu for someone who knows where/how to look. Jevansen (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV - significant coverage which isn't just one whole newspaper page.

WP:NCRIC - "cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level or in the lower levels of international cricket", WP:OFFCRIC - only Pentangular Trophy in his time period in Pakistan. Vestrian24Bio 12:22, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jevansen: "at some point was considered amongst the top 20 cricketers in Pakistan's most popular sport" - any source for that claim?? Vestrian24Bio 12:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vestrian24Bio: The WP:OFFCRIC guideline you linked lists the Pentangular Trophy under tournaments that have "first-class cricket status that the Cricket WikiProject deems (players to be) notable enough to presume coverage". He played in this tournament during the 1990s.[6]. In addition, Hussain played for Surrey in Div 1 of the 2007 County Championship, undisputedly the highest level. The basis of the top 20 claim is maths ... Pakistan "A" being the second eleven ... so top 22 by definition (I rounded down). Jevansen (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jevansen: not much of this is on the article, other than the infobox and lead, there's literally nothing on the article.

And so, the last part of your statement is WP:SYNTH as you've agreed yourself... Vestrian24Bio 15:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be in the article. It needs to be in the sources. We do mention he competed for Surrey (all their players satisfy WP:OFFCRIC) and this is backed by citations. I merely mentioned the "top 20" to highlight the likelihood of Urdu sources existing. This hasn't been inserted in the article, which is when WP:SYNTH would apply. Jevansen (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the full-page story found by Jevansen is clear SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies both WP:GNG and WP:NCRIC with sources added since nomination. Would welcome contribution of any Urdu speaker re further sourcing. Jevansen (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the fact that we're discussing whether a cricketer with over 250 major cricketing appearances - let alone in English county cricket - is notable is genuinely saddening. Bobo . 00:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed but sadly there seems to be a small element of editors who, rather than seeking to add to the knowledge provided in this online encyclopedia, are putting all their effort into trying to delete as much as they possibly can from it. They know all the acronyms as will as the miniature of rules and loopholes and commonsense has gone out the window. Shrug02 (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A rather odd nomination. More than enough coverage. Use some common sense, please. AA (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moed Ahmed

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

Masscreated LUGSTUB with no credible assertion of notability under WP:NSPORTS. FOARP (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Pakistan. FOARP (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to an appropriate list of players if possible. Vestrian24Bio 07:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Do not propose a Merge or Redirection if you don't have a target article in mind.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage found in independent reliable sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find any coverage and there does not seem to be an appropriate redirect target. Please ping me if coverage is found. JTtheOG (talk) 19:50, 4 May 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

Tosh Samkange

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT. The current sources are all primary to the clubs the subject has played for and I couldn't find any secondary coverage elsewhere. Let'srun (talk) 21:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, California, Colorado, and Washington. Let'srun (talk) 21:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Scott

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

Doesn't meet notability WP:Notability Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
del per WP:SIGCOV. The "SWPL Manager of the Year" is an "in-house" distinction of doubtful notability effect. --Altenmann >talk 18:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep were any searches for sources done? I found several. BBC, Edinburgh Reporter, Edinburgh Reporter 2, BBC 2, BBC 3, BBC 4, Edinburgh News, Glaswgow World, Sky Sports Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 19:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- were any searches for sources done? Yes - Q back: were any evaluations of sources done? . The the first two of yours are about "SWPL Manager of the Year" and no in-depth coverage beyond "how great a coach he is", i.e. IMHO no SIGCOV. --Altenmann >talk 20:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I did a search before nominating and came to the same conclusion. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe Hoffman-Johnson

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

Fails WP:SPORTSPERSON. The coverage is primarily about the team he helped found, not Hoffman-Johnson himself. Information about the team can be easily merged to that article (if it isn't there already). User:Namiba 15:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Maine. User:Namiba 15:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Invermay FC

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

Insufficient notability, no significant coverage. Coldupnorth (talk) 08:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Football Tasmania#Defunct teams – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fagner (footballer, born 1990)

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

Looks like a WP:SPORTCRIT/WP:GNG failure. Only played 122 minutes in Japan and has no usable sources in that Wikipedia. Returned to Brazil to only be a bit-part player there too. Geschichte (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are only sources about his time at PSTC, too little for WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not finding anything that establishes notability. Doesn't seem to have a page in Portuguese which is where I would go to try to learn more. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ma Siu Kwan

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

Sources for this article seem to refer back to this article (i.e. an aggregated google book) – might make more sense to merge to one of the team pages if doesn't seem worth a delete. Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Football, and Hong Kong. Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ihar Khmelyuk

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

No claim to notability outside of his 8 matches in the second tier of Belarus and no evidence of WP:GNG being met. Sport.ua only has 2 sentences about him and my own searches in Belarusian, Ukrainian and Russian (Хмелюк Игорь) yielded no decent results. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Belarus, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searching cyrillic/russian sources I found only this semi-dubious source remarking on Khmelyuk play. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 16:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Goodall

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The current sources are all primary while a BEFORE didn't come up with anything much better. Let'srun (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Florida, Ohio, and South Carolina. Let'srun (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Árpád Csonka

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

This footballer only played two matches for DAC Dunajská Streda before disappearing for over one decade. The only secondary source I found is Pravda, a passing mention in squad list. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:00, 4 May 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, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - playing 19 minutes of football is not a "credible claim of significance or importance". Geschichte (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Geschichte. RossEvans19 (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Punjab FC records and statistics

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

Per WP:NOTSTATS. The particular content can be found at Punjab FC#Records and statistics. Wareon (talk) 09:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Lists, and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Club is far too young to need this WP:CONTENTFORK. Govvy (talk) 10:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – As WP:ATD. I'm not against this type of page, but there's still little material to be worked on. Svartner (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Punjab FC#Records and statistics - does not need a separate article. Giant Snowman 18:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Jaime

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

Subject does not appear to have the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The current sources are primary and while a BEFORE found coverage at [[7]], student newspapers generally aren't considered as being independent. Let'srun (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Florida, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Feener

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

Subject does not appear to have the needed WP:SIGCOV from reliable secondary sources to meet the WP:GNG. The current sources in the article are all primary and a search elsewhere didn't come up with anything that could be used to have the notability guidelines be met. Let'srun (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, California, Oklahoma, and Washington. Let'srun (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I searched Google and I was unable to find sources that would meet general notability guidelines. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dastan Satpayev

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

Contested draftification. The only coverage of this football player I can find are trivial announcements that he'll be joining Chelsea and run-of-the-mill stories about his scoring in particular games. The Forbes article appears to be unreliable per WP:FORBESCON. Note that NFOOTY has been explicitly repealed by consensus of the community. See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability#202203070648_Wugapodes_2 and Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 49#Association football (soccer). voorts (talk/contributions) 00:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Kazakhstan, and England. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I already cited the most no. of sources and citations in Eng than other language versions, even more than the Kazakh version. Also included sourves from Kazakhstan FA and FC Kairat, please consider those. Chelsdog (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep International player, loads of sources on google, did you bother with a WP:BEFORE, [8], [9], [10]. Terrible nomination in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 08:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the part of my nom where I said all of the sources I could find are trivial coverage or run of the mill stories about his transfer to Chelsea? voorts (talk/contributions) 14:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per above. Svartner (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:voorts
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Forbes	WP:FORBESCON	WP:FORBESCON		? Unknown
Football Talent Scout		SPS. See about page.		✘ No
Astana Times	Independent of the subject, but not independent in the sense that this is a Kazakh-government run paper that has a vested interest in promoting Kazakhstan. See Special:PermanentLink/1059226246#Kazakh-government funded outlets.	See comment on independence.	Run-of-the-mill announcement about transfer. Not significant because participation does not equal notability.	✘ No
Vesti 1		No clear editorial standards and no author listed on article.	One sentence about the article subject.	✘ No
Vesti 2	?	No clear editorial standards and no author listed on article.	Trivial coverage about a single game.	✘ No
Vesti 3		No clear editorial standards and no author listed on article.	Largely trivial coverage about a single game, but tries to situate this into a potential record that the player hasn't actually broken.	? Unknown
Kazinform	English translation of press release. See following entry in chart.		Run-of-the-mill press release about moving to Chelsea.	✘ No
FC Kairat	Official team site.		Run-of-the-mill press release about moving to Chelsea.	✘ No
Chelsea Chronicle	Fan site.	~~Fan site, but claims to be run by journalists; no clear editorial standar ds].~~ Editorial standards here		? Unknown
The Standard			Run-of-the-mill story about transfer to Chelsea.	✘ No
KFF	Kazakhstan Football Federation website.		Participation is not sufficient for notability per the two RfCs noted in my nom.	✘ No
FC Kairat 2	Team website.		Two sentences and doesn't mention this player.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Source assessment confirms that the coverage is largely based on participation. Participation-based coverage is not sufficient for notability based on the two RfCs linked to in the nom. If footy editors want that changed, they're welcome to go start another RfC at NSPORTS. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Sources are too trivial/routine. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
added few more sources including BBC and YAHOO News. I guess they would be notable and reliable enough? Chelsdog (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Forbes, Vesti 2, and Chelsea Chronicle are decent enough to meet WP:GNG in my view. All Wikipedia articles require multiple significant coverage on reliable secondary sources. If his career with Chelsea FC does not pan out when he officially arrives there (e.g. only played a few matches), this page should be deleted. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Randall (footballer)

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

Played once professionally. We could redirect to 2010–11 Aldershot Town F.C. season as he is mentioned there. RossEvans19 (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. RossEvans19 (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above to 2010–11 Aldershot Town F.C. season, I tried to have a look to see if he did anything after being release from Aldershot, but see nothing. Very similar to other AfD Mark Wright (footballer, born 1981). Couldn't see any coverage after release. Govvy (talk) 08:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 16:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rafaela Pimenta

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

Fails in WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:ONEVENT, since it is only about the lawyer who inherited the fortune and business of the late agent Mino Raiola. Svartner (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Sportspeople, Women, and Brazil. Svartner (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources present in article which show notability. Giant Snowman 16:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that all sources cover a single event, with no notability beyond the Raiola's death event. Svartner (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable figure and pioneer. Also, a quick search shows she has sources from many different years idk what ur on about... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Acquista

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

Non-notable playing career and from what I've gathered a not particularly notable coaching career, but I might be wrong. WP:GNG Raskuly (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and New York. Raskuly (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Acosta

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

Subject played 11 games for the developmental team of New York Red Bulls, therefore WP:GNG. Acosta is no longer a collegiate athlete from what I gathered has not signed with another club, but I may be incorrect. Raskuly (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, New Jersey, New York, and North Carolina. Raskuly (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Abravanel

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

Subject only played three games at the third tier of American soccer. WP:GNG Raskuly (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and California. Raskuly (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some coverage: Kitsap Sun (p2), more in the Sun (p2), Ventura County Star (p2). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He did play at the professional level, but not for long, I also see he did get notable secondary coverage, such as the Ventura County Star. I see no problem with keeping the article, but it does need to be expanded as it is a stub. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I was gonna include some articles I found, but noticed that Beanie already did the honors. JTtheOG (talk) 04:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 16:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While there are only a few sources, they are notable and this person did have a formal, long, and notable soccer career. More sources would bolster inclusion but I think overall, this is notable enough to keep. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dersu Abolfathi

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

Subject only played eight games at a professional level in the third tier. WP:GNG Raskuly (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and California. Raskuly (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He did play at the professional level, but not for long, I see no problem with keeping the article, but it does need to be expanded as it is a stub. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria per WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. The sources, primarily from Stanford Athletics and Transfermarkt, provide only routine statistics without significant independent coverage. Abolfathi's limited professional record (one match each for Orange County Blue Star and Orange County Blues) and college honors (e.g., 2012 All-Pac-12 Honorable Mention) do not satisfy the requirement for notable achievements or widespread recognition in reliable sources. Editz2341231 (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No WP:SIGCOV for an athlete with a few matches in an amateur/semi-pro league. Svartner (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While this person was a professional player, it seems as though his career was extraordinarily short. Also, there seems to be a lack of notability in the sources to justify inclusion. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xavi Espart

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

An athlete who started his career recently does not meet WP:SPORTSPERSON. Htanaungg (talk) 04:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Spain. Htanaungg (talk) 04:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 13:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – Per above. Svartner (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Per above. RossEvans19 (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Cooper (soccer)

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

I'm not sure what makes Cooper more worthy of an article than other collegiate soccer coaches, especially since he has a non-notable playing career. The most notable thing about him (from what I understand) is his long tenure and winning a coach of the year award which may be enough to warrant an article, but I'm not sure so I've put it up. Raskuly (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and California. Raskuly (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find significant coverage of the player/coach. Most sources are primary. I don't think winning a coach of the year award is enough without in depth coverage of other accomplishments. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's SIGCOV here. He passes WP:NCOLLATH for being named the number one college coach in the U.S... BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'm in favor of keeping the article. Raskuly (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
pinging @Anonrfjwhuikdzz: and @GiantSnowman: for thoughts on this. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think there is coverage indicating Cooper is notable enough for an article. The article being pointed to as significant coverage on jweekly.com is local and relies heavily on comments from Cooper himself making the source partially primary and not entirely independent of the subject.

I also want to note that simply being named top coach does not mean someone is notable, it just means a search for in-depth coverage is more likely to be successful. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We need more than one good source - if you find a second similar to Jweekly then please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of having NCOLLATH if we're going to delete those who both pass it and have SIGCOV? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines for WP:NCOLLATH aren't a pass/fail system. They just indicate whether a search for significant coverage is likely to succeed. See Q2 in the FAQ at the top of the NSPORT page. The reality is that certain college sports don't receive much attention including football (soccer) in the US so a football coach meeting a bullet point in NCOLLATH is not a good indicator of notability. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is helped by knowing that "being the best coach in the U.S. is likely to result in significant coverage"... It either should have some weight at AFD or its useless. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
pinging WormEater13 who inappropriately close this. Per WP:SK#1, even if the nominator withdrawn, we should not close this as SK as there are 2 delete votes above. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Miminity - my apologies, I take full responsibility for this. I forgot to pay attention that there were two delete !votes, and this was a error on my part. Thank you for reverting. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yaw Amankwa

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

Played only at lower divisions. WP:GNG Raskuly (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Georgia (U.S. state), Maryland, and South Carolina. Raskuly (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability, only source is database. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 01:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 10:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Bender (soccer)

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

Only played in lower leagues. WP:GNG Raskuly (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Maryland, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. Raskuly (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only routine coverage exists and lower league player. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 01:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 10:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Ariatti

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

Fails WP:GNG. No sources beyond profiles from databases and short mentions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He played for Atalanta, Fiorentina, Lecce and Chievo in the Serie A and has over 150 appearances in his career [11] - There's some sources on the Italian wiki too. RossEvans19 (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just because he played many times does not make him notable. Also, 80% of the sources about him on the Italian wiki do not open for me for some reason, so i dont know what to say about them WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Are you too lazy to look at his Italian wiki? it:Luca Ariatti, there are sources about. Govvy (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Italian wiki sources, but article needs improvement. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 21:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per @RossEvans19, is a professional footballer who has played significantly in the Italian top flight. Yes, this is a poorly sourced article, but do a WP:BEFORE search. I guarantee that there are sources. Also -- clear pass of Wikipedia:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. This article definitely needs to be improved, but deletion is completely unwarranted. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per lack of WP:BEFORE. Notably, he was profiled in La Repubblica: "Giuseppe Calabrese, Ariatti, il normale incredibile dalla C agli stadi delle big, 9 November 2004, page 6". Also received a lot of coverage because of the recent Juventus scandal, eg. from Il Resto del Carlino [12]. Another example of significant coverage in reliable sources is this article from L'Arena, [13]. Cavarrone 11:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Really poor nomination with no evidence of BEFORE. Giant Snowman 13:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Analysis of the references on Italian Wikipedia would be helpful. The admins can't speedy keep this AfD as other participants may still prefer deletion. Following WP:NSPORTS2022, notability should be judged by references provided. Number of career appearances are irrelevant. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Satoshi Yoshida

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Played 24 games, but career was very short and lacks significant coverage, including none in the Japanese Wikipedia. Geschichte (talk) 07:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I had a read of the Japanese wikipedia, I didn't see even enough there for modern standards for WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Minor career and no WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage to establish notability.
Strong Delete WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:SIGCOV require that there be more regardless of the language. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Koji Inada (footballer)

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Played few games and lacks significant coverage, including none in the Japanese Wikipedia. Geschichte (talk) 07:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Mitrović (footballer, born January 2002)

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

He only played 19 minutes of professional football before spending his career in the second tier. A cursory search brought up the rather more merited footballer Stefan Mitrović born in the same year. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Serbia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Bilili Bangura

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

This guy doesn't meet the notability requirements. Article is an orphan. He plays for a division four team in Sweden -- an amateur league -- Wikipedia doesn't cover amateur football per guidelines. Finally, one of the sources seems to be a blog, and the other two aren't reliable sources. Not WP:SUSTAINED, fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS, and has serious NPOV issues. Also not notable bc it's only of interest to local people. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, Football, South Africa, and Sweden. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am a little confused by this one, is it a WP:HOAX ? Govvy (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think he is a real footballer, he appeared in National-football-teams. But I can't find source for most of the information in the article like "he joined his brother Abdul Bangura" and "one of the best midfielder for Härnösands FF" KhoaNguyen1 (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah -- per @KhoaNguyen1, it's not that he doesn't exist -- he just plays for a tier 4 swedish team (amateur level,) and doesn't have sigcov or reliable sources. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator, that footballer has only played 2 professional matches KhoaNguyen1 (talk) 10:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too many red flags for me, doesn't seem to pass GNG for me either. Govvy (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 01:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 01:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I haven't been able to find many RSes that can be used to bolster his notability. If the assertion is true that he has only played 2 professional matches, I fail to see how this reaches the levels of notability required for an athlete. WP:TOOSOON likely applies here. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luís Henrique (footballer, born 1979)

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

I performed a WP:BEFORE and did not find any WP:SIGCOV about this player. Svartner (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Sportspeople, and Brazil. Svartner (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another one of countless WP:COOKIE sportsmen whose WP:N is pretty much non-existent. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perm stub that's once sentence long with no sources.. Scooby453w (talk)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 01:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 01:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks notability. I cannot find any RSes to support him. Therefore WP:SIGCOV likely applies here.

Steven Barrera

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. JTtheOG (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and California. JTtheOG (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 23:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 01:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 01:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:RS criterion. Go4thProsper (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hussein Al-Ankoshei

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

No evidence of WP:SUSTAINED notability using WP:RS Amigao (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Iraq. Shellwood (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and Football. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 01:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 01:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Wright (footballer, born 1981)

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

Just a single sentence. Non-notable, fails WP:GNG Mast303 (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 1999–2000 Preston North End F.C. season. Very common name, hard to lookup, I gave up after 5 minutes of searching. He could have played for other clubs, if not, maybe a redirect to the season page, as he only played three games for that season under David Moyes. Govvy (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per Gowy. Svartner (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per Shrug02 sources. Svartner (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe these provide significant coverage [14] [15] [16] Shrug02 (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 01:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show (just) notability. Giant Snowman 01:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am going to stick with my original argument of redirect, honestly, those sources although talk about him retiring are WP:ROUTINE and makes his career WP:BLP1E. Unless he is some how able to become a top coach, then this not a notable career. Govvy (talk) 08:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy He was on the books at a professional club for 6 years and made his debut at the age of 17 which (bearing in mind the current record and when it was set) makes him one of the youngest players to play for PNE and probably got coverage in print media at the time - this was 1998 when digital coverage was sparse. He also played for them in a season that they won the league they were in. He's certainly more notable than just for the fact he retired which makes the BLP1E suggestion nonsense. Shrug02 (talk) 10:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being on the books in the youth setup does not give notability. Getting a debut can help, but again he only played a few games then had to retire. WP:SUSTAINED applies also. This bio clearly lacks and does not constitute towards a keep. Govvy (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Enough there to pass GNG and SIGCOV by a whisker. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – The only potential significant coverage is The Bolton News, while the other two are routine announcements of retirement. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Not enough to sustain a biography on a living person, the references can be added to 1999–2000 Preston North End F.C. season. Geschichte (talk) 08:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per GiantSnowman and Svartner and Shrug and Anxioustoavoid. Already has sources, probably has more offline sources due to pre-internet era and was part of a championship-winning team. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1999–2000 Preston North End F.C. season. This AfD has turned up three small news pieces that basically say that a promising footballer had to reture early owing to injury. There is nothing there that establishes notability, unfortunately, and the fact of his retirement ensures nothing else is coming (at least as a footballer). This is just routine coverage of a non notable player who got injured and retired. The redirect target is a suitable WP:ATD as it points to where he played for his brief career. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Gavilanes

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this American soccer player. JTtheOG (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Florida, New Jersey, New York, and South Carolina. JTtheOG (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft? SIGCOV? You know you can work with WP:BASIC, anyway, I see some useful hits, but most are WP:ROUTINE from my perspective. Possible a better article can be built, but I am not really seeing it. So delete or draft for me. Govvy (talk) 10:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 01:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 01:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—I admit that this is surprising, given his age and experience, but WP:SIGCOV is lacking, and he's too old, in my view, for a WP:TOOSOON. Anwegmann (talk) 03:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Allsebrook

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

Fails as per WP:NSPORTS. While he has appeared more than 80 times for a club at a professional level, and it is backed by two notable sources, there is simply nothing else that would suggest that this player is 'relevant' enough for an article. KrystalInfernus (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Shellwood (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And where did you look for sources for this 1910s footballer? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The nominator makes the keep case themselves. This person "played for a club at a professional level" and the article is "backed by two notable sources". What more do you want, especially as this player pre-dates the internet age by many decades? Anxioustoavoid (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I consider this a bad faith nomination, the player won the Second division with Notts County in the 1913–14 Football League, I bet there are old newspaper archives that can help. WP:OFFLINESOURCES. Probably mentioned in a few Notts history books. I also suspect he may have served in WW1, there is probably more to find. Govvy (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 01:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nearly 100 appearances for one of the most pre-eminent teams in English football, in an era when the internet did not exist. WP:COMMONSENSE apples. Giant Snowman 01:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. WP:NFOOTBALL was scrapped in 2022 and all Keeps using it as a reason to keep should be ignored by the closer. I did an actual search in the BNA archives and found no sigcov for Richard/Dick Allsebrook. Dougal18 (talk) 08:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—"Two notable sources" is enough, especially given the WP:COMMONSENSE of the context. Anwegmann (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The book is just stats so it isn't enough even if the Athletic Times article is sigcov. Dougal18 (talk) 08:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of good sources on internet. No question of notability. Meets WP:NFOOTBALL. WikiMentor01 (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS – Both sources don't give significant coverage of the player. The book is simply a compilation of player statistics while the Athletic News source is simply a listing of all the birth places, names, roles, and heights of the players. Per WP:SPORTCRIT, All sports biographies, including those of subjects meeting any criteria listed below, must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. As stated above, none of the sources cited in the article contain significant coverage of the player. Searches on the British Newspaper Archive didn’t turn up any significant coverage of the player in question. There are some results about a "Richard Allsebrook" being in two road accidents in 1930 and 1932 but I'm not certain whether or not this is the same "Richard Allsebrook". This article states that "Richard Allsebrook" was 32 years old at the time of the accident (1930) and this article states he was 37 years old at the time of the accident (1934). If those sources are to be believed, "Richard Allsebrook" was either born in 1897/1898 and not in 1892 like the article states. So either these sources are talking about a different "Richard Allsebrook" or they’re all referring to the same person and we simply have contradictory information about his birth date. Lastly, WP:NFOOTY, a WikiProject advice page, clearly states that The player section of this notability guidance has been superseded by WP:Notability (sports), and is included below for information only as a record of the previous guidance that the Footy project came up with. Per the above, WP:NSPORTS is not met. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nearly 100 appearances for one of the most pre-eminent teams in English football, player pre-dates the internet age by many decades? per WP:NEXIST offline sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Swierot

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

After defusing a couple WP:REFBOMBs, the notability of this young footballer didn't seem as clear. After a search, the most I found from third-party sources was this routine contract extension announcement and trivial mentions like 1. There is also a bit here, although it consists of quotes from the club's training center director. JTtheOG (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and France. JTtheOG (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep :
- WP:FOOTYN :
- Have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure.
- Have played in a competitive fixture between two fully professional clubs in a domestic, Continental or Intercontinental club competition.
- Swierot played for Lyon, winning the French Division 1 Championship in 2024, and with Reims. + UEFA Women's Under-17 Championship (which she won), UEFA Women's Under-19 Championship.
https://www.fff.fr/equipe-nationale/joueur/10490-swierot-julie/fiche.html

Third party sources

https://www.lunion.fr/id697342/article/2025-03-13/le-stade-de-reims-pourra-cette-fois-faire-jouer-julie-swierot-face-lolympique

https://www.leprogres.fr/sport/2024/08/02/ol-feminin-julie-swierot-prolonge-d-une-saison-et-est-pretee-a-reims

https://www.leprogres.fr/sport/2023/08/01/le-futur-de-l-ol-feminin-c-est-elles

https://africafootunited.com/transfert-f-lequipe-feminine-du-stade-de-reims-signe-marion-haelewyn-et-trois-autres-joueuses/

https://www.lyonfoot.com/article/6634/ol-feminin-julie-swierot-prolonge-d-un-an-et-file-en-pret-a-reims

https://www.olympique-et-lyonnais.com/mercato-swierot-prolongee-par-lol-feminin-puis-pretee-a-reims,336445.html

https://www.olympique-et-lyonnais.com/ol-academie-dix-jeunes-joueuses-ont-obtenu-leur-baccalaureat,334629.html

And I wonder how people feel about a user specifically targeting another user after a disagreement. Harassment, stalking. ProudWatermelon (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are all brief mentions or transfer reports, none of these are really helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Might meet notability requirements with the pro starts, but we need sourcing. Simply mentioning the person in a brief article less than a paragraph long isn't enough. I don't see sourcing we can use what's in the article is primary. The sources in the comment above are brief mentions or articles less than a paragraph long. It's likely TOOSOON for this young person. Oaktree b (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summoning Govvy and BeanieFan11. Barr Theo (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barr Theo. I see you are new to AfDs, and I'm sure this ping was done in good faith. Please note that you need to be very careful about pinging editors to a discussion. If it appears this is done to influence one side or another, it would be considered vote stacking. The active AfD participants will usually find their way to discussions they are interested in. If you need specific expertise, it is a good idea to explain why you are summoning that editor. E.g. because they speak a language used in the sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Barr Theo: You're free to ~~strikethrough~~ your own comment if you'd like, but please don't delete someone else's. I've restored Sirfurboy's comment. JTtheOG (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "yes, there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively - but there is a longstanding convention to allow young players/those with ongoing careers more leeway, and I think the same should be allowed here. He is 19, and more sources will be written in due course. If they are not or he never plays again etc. then delete at that point." Barr Theo (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't even got this person's gender right... Giant Snowman 01:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: It's funny you say that, because I copied and pasted this comment from you (hence why I placed it under "quotations")... I found it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caden Tolentino from August 2021... I was trying to talk the way you guys do... Barr Theo (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should not be blindly copying & pasting other editor's comments from unrelated AFDs, especially not ones that came before NFOOTBALL was abolished. Giant Snowman 00:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
or is it a double standard ProudWatermelon (talk) 06:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No Geschichte (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 01:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 01:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don Anding

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this American former soccer player. JTtheOG (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania. JTtheOG (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some coverage: PennLive, Philly Inquirer, Patch.com. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 14:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- What's wrong with e.g. PennLive, which was 700 words on him? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Pinging @GiantSnowman: in case he did not see Beanie's comment. JTtheOG (talk) 09:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  PennLive is good - not enough on its own. Giant Snowman 12:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At the very least, this should be redirected to All-time Philadelphia Union roster as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft deletion as there are editors objecting to Deletion stance.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Penn Live article mentioned above is all I can find as well, other than the team's website. I don't see enough sourcing to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ymer Abili

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

Subject isn't notable other than the coverage he received for signing with Melbourne City. I think that this is a instance of WP:BLP1E and WP:TOOSOON. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, and Australia. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support draftify as WP:ATD. There is some coverage, but only mentioning the fact that he is a young player making his debut in the Australian Cup. Svartner (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I fully agree with the BLP1E, but I think that the subject also exhibits high potential for notability in the (somewhat) near future given his age. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 23:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree! However, this is a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. If/once the subject receives more coverage, an article about the subject would be justified. However, it's too early as of right now, and so deletion would be the best course of option. The article can be easily undeleted in the future. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly has enough coverage, see e.g. SMH/The Roar etc. Giant Snowman 12:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per GiantSnowman. I agree that he has enough good sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - The coverage is not sufficient for GNG. There is a case that this will increase (although hard to be sure how soon), and the page creater is active and !voted here, so it seems unlikely it will be abandoned if sources arise. This seems like an acceptable ATD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, opinion is divided between Keep or Draftify.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. I've removed the ref to theroar as it is clearly fan-written SPS. YOUNGATH sets a higher requirement for coverage than is supplied by SMH, and anyway that story appears to be BLP1E. If he garners more attention having now signed, the article can be moved back to mainspace. JoelleJay (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Delete. The subject is notable for one event WP:BLP1E, and I couldn't find any coverage from 2023 to present. The subject may become noteworthy in the future, but as of now it seems WP:TOOSOON. 🌊PacificDepths^talk|contrib 12:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Kubr

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

Contested redirect without improvement. If WP:NFOOTY still applied, would meet that requirement, but searches did not turn up the type of in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG, just stat pages. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on whether he's notable, but @Onel5969: may I suggest that if you come across an active non-notable footballer, you take it to AFD or PROD rather than BLAR as you previously did here? Footballers often move between lots of teams, so redirecting it to the one the subject is at presently could quickly become outdated and incorrect. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per Das osmnezz sources. I couldn't see the paywalled ones, but the rest seem satisfactory to me. Svartner (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The sources presented are primary sources, and he only played one match of professional level in Norway. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Plus twenty in the Czech second tier... FromCzech (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources below which (AGF) seemingly show notability. Giant Snowman 13:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @Svartner:, @GiantSnowman:, @Clariniie: bruh I found [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], among many more Czech and Norwegiajn sources in a few mins. Young player with ongoing career and many sources and 20+ fully pro games. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Bruh?" You know Q+A interviews are not acceptable for passing GNG yet you insist on providing them as sources at AFD. In your "few mins" search you've managed to link the same an.no article twice. (BTW what's behind the paywall? Can you tell us what is contains?) Dougal18 (talk) 09:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't get past the paywall either, but the headline reads: "Tough months for Lucas (20). I don't blame anyone." The second heading reads "Lucas Kubr had to have ankle surgery last fall. Now he's getting better and better every day." So it looks like a mix of news reporting of the slow return to form of a player with an injury, and interview with him ("I don't blame anyone" clearly being his words). The source is primary on one count or the other. I don't see how that can be counted towards notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:32, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy:, @Clariniie:, Idk how secondary coverage combined with interview would not count... using that black and white logic all newspaper/magazine interviews mixed with secondary coverage with anybody (like [23] or [24]) would not be counted towards anything... First source: ("Lucas Kubr is now showing it in Brno, where he found his first Czech contract at the age of 20 with second-league Zbrojovka. It came after a two-year stint in Norwegian Bodö/Glimt, for which he is grateful, but he did not want to be dragged off the substitutes' bench any longer... Both as a person and as a football player, Lucas Kubr grew up in the family of Prague native Martin Kubr in Belgium near Genk, in a region crazy about cycling... He didn't enjoy pedaling. But he was fascinated by football"), Second source: ("He is finally enjoying football again, and to a significant extent. Lucas Kubr desperately needed a lot of time on the pitch. After a season in which he played only a minimum of matches for the Norwegian team Bodo/Glimt, the left-back only welcomed the summer offer from Zbrojovka. He plays regularly for the Brno club, often in the starting lineup, and on Friday he even enjoyed his first goal in South Moravia against Slavia B. It was enough for a 1:1 draw. The 20-year-old player has mixed memories of his time at the elite Norwegian club. He gained valuable experience from an interesting destination, and at the beginning of last season it looked like he could make a significant impact. He started Bodo/Glimt's journey in the preliminary rounds of the European Conference League on the bench, from which he also watched the successful double match against Bohemians Prague, but that almost ended Kubra's anabasis in the first team. He only played in two cup matches, only collecting starts for the Norwegian club's reserve team. He welcomed his summer return to the Czech Republic, even though he is not currently experiencing many happy moments with Zbrojovka. The Brno team is still stuck in the relegation positions in the second league"), Third source just from the section without paywall: ("Grandma is from Palermo. Mom is Belgian, dad is from Prague, aunt is German. He was born near Genk, Belgium, and plays above the Arctic Circle in Norway... he rushed to Prague to visit his grandfather, who lives alone in a large house above Smíchov"), Fourth source: ("He lives an extraordinary life. With a Czech father, an Italian mother, a birthplace in Belgium, a current position in Norway beyond the Arctic Circle and a secret desire to become the new David Jurásek. Lucas Kubr (19), do you know him? The fast left-back from Bodo/Glimt was only recently discovered for domestic football by coach Radek Bejbl. The native of the Flemish city of Tongeren is an option for Jurásek's position in the newly formed U21 national team for Jan Suchopárek... Attention, a few days ago the youngster was close to being loaned out to the Czech league, according to iSport information specifically in České Budějovice. But the whole thing is said to have fallen through. It is still possible that the nice guy Lucas Kubr will arrive in the Czech Republic at the beginning of August with the Norwegian team for the rematch of the second preliminary round of the Conference League at Letná against Bohemians. Even if as a substitute"), and the fifth and sixth sources definitely have secondary coverage behind paywall. On top of this I can even find more sources and he will definiftely get more as his nascent pro and international career progresses. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The added sources are just match reporting and other primary reporting. For GNG we need multiple independent reliable secondary sources. We don't have those. I am a little troubled by a !vote that says "AGF seemingly show notability". At AfD we need to be discussing and reading the sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we need multiple secondary SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG. Even just one provided is still too weak to establish notability. By the way, did you mean passing mention in match reports? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. In answer to your question, it is passing anyway, but no - the problem is that even if you have a match report that has something that scrapes through SIGCOV by describing a good game that the player had, the account of the match is a primary source. Someone has watched the match and written down what they saw. The very definition of a primary source. Many people seem to assume that such accounts show notability (and such people have perhaps never !voted to delete an article in any AfD ever), but notability is shown when someone takes such accounts and writes a source that synthesises them to tell us something biographical of the player. For instance, if someone takes multiple accounts and describes how the player pioneered a new attack, or somesuch, then the synthesis and biographical account will be a secondary source demonstrating that the player is not just a player but a notable one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See what I wrote above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This report includes detailed analysis of his background and movement between Norway and the Czech Republic. This short article gives details on his personal background. This article is an extended profile. Easily satisfies GNG/BIO. Also there is simply no community consensus that match reports can per se be discounted as "primary"; it is simply not that binary. A match report can contain all sorts of information referencing past match histories, player interactions, differences between matches in a current season, coach/player styles, coach/player development etc. A match report which contains detailed analysis of a particular player's contribution could well count *towards* notability. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Match reports certainly are, prima facie the epitome of primary sources. They are an eyewitness report of a match. Your point, I think, is that even primary sources may contain information that may be considered secondary, depending on the question asked. An example from an unrelated area: a PhD thesis is a primary source, but a thesis studying a school might contain historical background of the school culled from other sources, and that background might be secondary. That does not make the thesis a secondary source. But when I said the sources were match reporting and other primary reporting, I did not assert a "binary" at all. I specifically said that what I read was primary reporting. So, let's look at these.
- Your first example [25] is certainly match reporting from paragraph 4 onwards. Paragraph 1 is the writers introduction, includes a primary quote and a writers opinion "he enjoys football again". No secondary information. Paragraph 2 likewise. although "he gained valuable experience by..." is not about this match, it is the primary opinion of the writer, it is not a collation or analysis of any sources. Paragraph 3 likewise and has quotations from the subject, which are neither primary nor independent.
- Your second [26] is, as you say, very short. It also is evidently written from an interview response. I don't see how that can tell us anything about notability.
- I'll have to come back to source 3 and the four that Das osmnezz wants to discuss above as I am out of time. Potentially an extended profile is relevant, and is not just match reporting, but I'll note cautions that (1) it contains interview material - which does not preclude it being good, but must be considered appropriately per WP:IV (2) independence needs to be considered. What is the occasion of the document? (3) we need multiple sources.
Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: seems like discussion is still ongoing here, Sirfurboy has at least indicated that they intend to return
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "a PhD thesis is a primary source" - that statement does not reflect community consensus; WP:SCHOLARSHIP: as they are often, in part, primary sources. (my emphasis) In other words, not always and if so, partially. Thus, case by case analysis is required, which is my point above about match reports. Unfortunately, this is again a demonstration of turning elements of our guidelines into binary black and white frameworks. It denies that our guidelines are designed to have flexibility and not be absolute. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How you can read what I said and think I am asserting a "binary black and white" framework, when I very specifically made the point to say the opposite, is beyond me. I literally made the point that the research is a primary source for the research/thesis being defended, but contains secondary information if the question asked of the source is different. But if you think that an eye witness match report is not prima facie a primary source, then you have some more reading to do. If someone watches a match and writes about the match, then what they are writing is an eye witness account. Now to the sources I said I'd come back to, I'll look at Das osmnezz's 4 first, and then at the third of yours that I ran out of time for.
- First source: [27] This whole source is an interview. See WP:IV a person does not pass GNG if interviews are the only kind of sourcing they have. In particular, all statements an interviewee makes about themself in an interview are primary, and cannot be used towards GNG. This includes the interviewer's summary of their response as you have quoted here. N
- Second source: [28] This is a match report, a primary source. You argue that, nevertheless, there is secondary information, such as "He is finally enjoying football again." While it is true that this is not exactly a description of his performance on the field, what it is is an opinion of the person watching. That person is presenting the match report, and their opinion that he is enjoying football again, is the eyewitnesses opinion. This is still primary. It is the primary opinion of the reporter. It is not a synthesis or analysis of primary sources. It is their opinion based on what they saw. As a matter of historiography, this is all a primary source. It tells us about his performance in the match, it does not tell us about the notability of the subject. N
- Third Source: [29] - Again an interview. Now you pick up the statement "Grandma is from Palermo..." etc. These are statements of fact that can be safely used in an article, but it is clear that this was not researched by the interviewer from some primary source. The interviewer has asked the interviewee a question, and he said, in the course of his answer, that his grandma came from Palermo etc. The statement is reported as a fact, but the information has come directly from the subject during the interview. It is primary. It is probably reliable enough, but it tells us nothing about notability, as per WP:IV and P&G N
- Fourth Source: [30] - This is another interview and also cannot be used to establish notability. N
- "This article" source (the one I said I'd come back to): [31] This one has a write up about an upcoming match. The first thing to note is that the quotations from Kubr are primary regarding Kubr. That is, if he talks about himself, the information is primary. Halfway down the article, however, we get a little biographical detail - his Belgian/Czech story. This information clearly comes from him, but the occasion is what is important. Why are we getting his profile? The answer is simply that he is a new signing, about to get a start. It is a news story, but I do not believe this demonstrates notability. News reporting is primary, and although the background goes beyond the main news interest, the information presented has clearly been obtained from the subject themself in the course of an interview for the news story. I will, however, mark it as a ? because others might wish to make a case for it. That case would need to take the occasioning of the article seriously. If one were inclined to accept it, however, this would still be the only source we have. WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources, so we are still short of GNG here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)
Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

as I have said before this is black and white thinking since this logic means that a ton of mixed interview and secondary reporting profile pieces for magazines websites and newspapers cannot contribute to Wikipedia biographies' notability which is absurd. Also secondary reporting alongside an interview somehow dosnt count but if another source uses said interview as a source it does count? Make that make sense... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is source analysis. If information comes from the horse's mouth, it is not independent of the horse. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12 and 15 look in my view, while 13 is partially paywalled. Yeah, I understand that IR SIGCOV might be sometimes difficult to find... ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:32, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandar Gruber

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

Footballer that fails WP:GNG, no sources beyond profiles and stats from databases. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NOTSTATS Fails WP:NSPORTS. The notability criteria is more than a pseudo biography and not a resume. -- Otr500 (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Serbia, and Yugoslavia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This guy played for fair sized clubs including Lech Poznań and a lot of football at that, he played at the top of his game and played European games. Playing football is not a NOTSTATS issue. I don't know how much media coverage he had in the countries he played for at the time, but I am betting on newspapers here. WP:OFFLINESOURCES. Yes there does seem to be coverage issue, but the internet at this time, is not at the same level on the region, it was still being built up in Serbia at that time. It doesn't help the fact he played during a time of strong geo-political issues in the region. So that might negate searches. I am going to assume good faith here for my weak keep. Govvy (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Govvy Боки 💬 📝 06:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:35, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Even though he played in smaller centers, he had spells at important clubs in those places, didn't he really find any WP:SIGCOV? Svartner (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AFD Patrol. While there is no clear consensus, the evident lack of SIGCOV is a strong policy-compliant argument. Spartathenian (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Table football (disambiguation)

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

Unnecessary dab page. Nothing listed in this page with "Table football". Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing ambiguous about this list of related variations on a concept. BD2412 T 01:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda keep Seems useful enough to me. Govvy (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a reasonable list of games that can be referred to as "table football." Frank Anchor 14:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Govvy, seems sensible and useful. Giant Snowman 17:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is reasonable that someone could refer to any of these as table football. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't a useful disambig. There's also Table football. -- mikeblas (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only Penny football claims it's also referred to as table football, but the closest source doesn't support that. These entries should all go into Table football#See also. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The keep argument here appears to be that the list is "useful enough" or "reasonable", but those reasons don't comply with WP:DP. As explained at WP:DAB, a disambiguation page is used "when a potential article title is ambiguous", and not otherwise. In the same guideline, WP:PTM asserts that "a disambiguation page is not a search index", and links "should not be included... where there is no significant risk of confusion between them". Spartathenian (talk) 09:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I don't think this really ameliorates much confusion, and don't see indication that multiple of these topics are referred to as table football. I think the hatnote already present on the main page and its 'see also' section are sufficient here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, right now this looks like a possible "No consensus" closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Changed my earlier comment, and now support deletion because the page entries are not disambiguations. Spartathenian (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ajdin Mujagić

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

This Bosnian men's footballer had a short professional career before moving to the second tier of Croatian football. The closest source that is not a transfer announcement is SportSport, but it only mentions his name in title. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Per all above. Anwegmann (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reference count has more than doubled since the last "delete" !vote. Thoughts on the expansion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article has enough content and sources to be notable. Per WP:SPORTSPERSON the article has secondary sources that are independent to the subject to be presumed notable. They have also won the Bosonian Cup as well. Extensive research could have been done. Editz2341231 (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article has changed since the nomination, it would be useful if we could analyze the new sources. RossEvans19 (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @GiantSnowman:, @Anwegmann:, per WP:HEY. Also I found [32], [33], [34], among many more Bosnian and Croatian sources. Has sources ongoing career and played 13 pro games for one of most historically successful Bosnian teams. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of brief interviews does not indicate notability. We need better analysis of sources. Giant Snowman 13:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anwegmann:, First source ("With Željezničar, he won the 2017/2018 BiH Cup, and for the 2022/2023 season he was chosen as the top scorer of the First League of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina with as many as 20 goals scored"), second source ("Ajdin Mujagić is the new gem of the youth team of FK železničar, who shone in full glory. In his debut for the first team of the Blues on Sunday, he scored his debut and thus definitely opened a new chapter in his career in an excellent way... He joined the first team at the invitation of coach Edis Mulalić, who knows him well from the junior team"), third source ("Ajdin Mujagić is celebrating in Croatia: He came off the bench and brought the autumn title... He was especially remembered in the FBiH First League, where he scored 44 goals and added 19 assists in 103 appearances. The episode in Zvijezda from Gradačac is especially memorable because in 31 games he scored as many as 22 goals and distributed 12 assists to his teammates"), among many more Bodnian and Coatian sources. Has sources ongoing career and played 13 pro games for one of most historically successful Bosnian teams who he won the Cup with. Also WP:HEY. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't copy/paste sentences between posts/arguments. (In this case: the " Has sources ongoing career and played 13...") This is one of the things you have been warned not to do. Geschichte (talk) 09:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Despite the added sources, they all appear to be WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, routine transfer coverage or other non-WP:SIGCOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more analysis of the nature of the sourcing would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – WP:HEYed since the nomination. The sources provide sufficient coverage of the player's sports career, which is the information that is truly pertinent. Svartner (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yutaro Yoshino

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

With 7 J3 appearances, [35], he doesn't seem notable, but as he played in Brazil briefly there may be stuff out there. RossEvans19 (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Japan, and Brazil. RossEvans19 (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Corresponding article on Japanese Wikipedia only consists of routine announcements. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Have fleshed out article with two in-depth articles detailing his time in Brazil, as well as multiple other smaller articles. Meets GNG. Zênite (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Oh wow, fantastic additions Zênite! I would be very happy to keep the article now after the WP:HEY. I can't speedy close this due to Clara's delete but I will ping @Clariniie: to ask her to look at it again :) RossEvans19 (talk) - 17:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources from Targma seem to have significant coverage: 2020 and 2024. I'm just not sure if the source is reliable. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:29, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of these from Targma is one I independently thought worth further discussion, below. However no one has addressed the question of reliability. Isn't this primary reporting of team news? As it stands that is not a clear pass to me, but would be happy to have the discussion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – I found this in Brazilian media [36], [37], basically talking about his signing by Sport Capixaba in 2016 and summarizing his time in Brazil. I don't know if it's enough, but it can certainly help. Svartner (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer announcements do not count as significant coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:29, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show (apparently - AGF!) notability. Giant Snowman 17:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Weak delete.. changed course here after more recent considerations and especially in light of Sirfurboy's comments and further source review. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a chain of trust issue here if we say per the above editor, and that editor only says that sources "apparently" show notability. Are we reading the sources here? I haven't yet, but making this comment to request a relist since we are on day 7, and I would need some time to do so. On the face of it, the page looks reasonable, but a source review would be good. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands. I have now conducted my source review. We need significant coverage in multiple independent reliables secondary sources. There are 16 sources currently on the page, although, in fact, multiple articles from the same outlet will count as a single source for purposes of GNG. There are thus potentially 10 there. My source review looks at all 16, but treats like sources together. There are a couple that we could discuss further, but on the face of it, I am not certain we have any suitable sources and I am reasonably clear we don't have multiple sources. Source assessment:

1. & 14. [38] [39]- Primary / not independent -

2. [40] Listing, not SIGCOV. Primary?

3. [41] WP:SPS - blog. Not a WP:RS. Not SIGCOV - passing mention.

4. [42] - Interview. WP:PRIMARY per policy. Not independent.

5. [43] - This appears to speak about the subject, and have some relevant background, but it doesn’t look much like a reliable source. What is it?

6 & 7. [44], [45] - Club news is primary.

8, 10 & 11. [46] [47] [48]Reporting of team announcements - primary.

9. & 15. [49] [50] - Team reports are primary. The second of these (source 15) has more in depth information about the subject, although it is yielded from an interview and in a source that appears primary. I will mark it as a maybe, however, to indicate this is one we might discuss further.

&

12, 13 [51] [52] - Team announcements - primary.

16. [53] - Reports an appointment - primary.

I will certainly consider a redirect as a WP:ATD - perhaps to a team? Or is he mentioned elsewhere? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources 6 and 7 are from GE (Grupo Globo), the largest sports portal in Brazil, so they are not primary. Svartner (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking. It is not the quality of the source that makes them primary, it is the content. I agree it is a good source, but they are primary because all they have is a brief news report about him joining the team. Source 6 has Tigre Linharense confirmed the arrival of 19-year-old Japanese midfielder Yutaro Yoshino, who is already with the rest of the squad finalising their pre-season in Atibaia, São Paulo. and nothing more. As well as being primary, of course, that is not SIGCOV, so either way it is out. Source 7 is fuller, with 3 paragraphs about the page subject arriving at the club. It doesn't actually tell us anything about the subject himself, but we are told he has arrived and will be playing on Wednesday. Also note that it says "Sport-ES received news..." So this is classic club news reporting. We are told a player has been signed, arrived and will play in the next match. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS: It is what is in the report that makes this primary. In any case, what could we use from that report to write the page? We cannot even say he did play on that date, because we only have this report that he was meant to. There is no secondary information about the player from which an encyclopaedic page could be written. 18:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC) Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These two sources perfectly cover his formative period in Brazilian football. The question is which sources cover the period of his return to Japan. Svartner (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources need to be secondary to count towards notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @Miminity: Maybe you can help with the Japanese sources. Svartner (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I found on JP name search is just primary sources and bunch of routine coverage. Here is the profile on Ultra Soccer, Gekisaka. JP wiki has nothing worth mentioning. The portuguese sources are beyond my scope so I cannot vote. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per @Sirfurboy's analysis. #5 (COJB) appears to be a club he belonged to ("I hope this will be the case for Yoshino and the other members who have left COJB.") and is thus not independent. #15 (Tagma interview) appears to be hosted, SB Nation-style, on the fan "web magazine" for YSCC. I can't find any info on editorial control, but it seems to be a one-man operation from the articles I can find. Doubtful it is RS. JoelleJay (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per source analysis by Sirfurboy and JoelleJay. Of the sources listed, only #15 is possibly GNG-conforming (the reliability of the source is questionable though there is apparent significant, independent coverage). That alone wouldn't be enough to allow the subject pass GNG, which generally expects multiple references. Frank Anchor 20:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Frank Anchor. Even only one significant coverage provided is not enough to pass WP:GNG. Yes, only Source #15 contains WP:GNG. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - @Iljhgtn:, should still be a weak keep at least... Idk how [54] ("a graduate of YS Academy. His calm tone and smile give this impression. But people like this always have something burning inside them. He left his hometown of Yokohama and honed his skills in Brazil. The language and culture are different. He survived in a country with a completely different security situation. Behind his gentle expression is a strong, courageous man. A fan of professional wrestling. He is fluent in Portuguese"), [55] ("After graduating from junior high school, he learned the language while playing in Brazil. In 2022, while he was undergoing rehabilitation, he also served as an interpreter for Brazilian player Rizzi, who was a member of YSCC's futsal team"), [56], ("went to Brazil at the age of 15 and played there for about six and a half years, and then built a professional career in Japan"), [57], ("Yoshino, who joined YS Yokohama in 2020, played in seven league games that season, but did not play in 2021 or 2022") combined with sources about his inuries and signings do ot and pro appearances does noit meet critria. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed in the Lucas Kubr AfD that the issue of Q+A interviews has already been raised with you (apparently repeatedly). These are Q+A interviews, and cannot be used to establish notability per policy. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was told that Q&A interviews can be used on articles if there is large/significant independent analysis more than those. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is too long and meta to be discussed here, but there is certainly more to be said. Guidance is at WP:IV. But in this case, all we have is primary information that is excluded per policy. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Idk how secondary coverage combined with interview would not count... using that black and white logic all newspaper/magazine interviews mixed with secondary coverage with anybody would not be counted towards anything... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article’s sparse citations violate WP:V and claims about Yoshino’s career (playing for YSCC Yokohama, translator role) lack evidence of notable impact per WP:ATHLETE. This risks WP:OR too. I only found primary sources (club websites, J.League profiles) and trivial mentions, possibly failing WP:RS as well. Editz2341231 (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Golf

Articles for deletion

Minthis Hills

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

Largely unsourced and primarily promotional article about a resort/golf course in Cyprus. Created by a WP:SPA. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG and WP:NGEO. Existing references do not adequately demonstrate the historical significance of the site's monastery, which is mentioned only in passing, and largely without references, in what appears to be an attempt to justify the travelogue article. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 13:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Golf and Cyprus. – The Grid (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Categories

Handball

Matěj Havran

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

This Czech handball player (and casual MMA fighter?) does not currently meet WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG. There is no evidence of WP:SIGCOV, just stats pages, routine match coverage and coverage on non-independent sites affiliated with Czech handball. A redirect from another editor was contested, so bringing this to AfD. As an alternative to deletion I propose to redirect to Czech Republic men's national handball team until such time as he meets NSPORT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Handball, and Czech Republic. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chris Neiszner

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

Article about a hockey player, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for hockey players. The leagues he played in, the American Hockey League and the ECHL, are specifically listed in WP:NHOCKEY as conferring notability only if the player "Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top-10 career scorer, first-team all-star)" -- but there's no claim being made here that he ever achieved any such thing in either league, and he hasn't been shown to pass WP:GNG either as the article is referenced entirely to content self-published by the teams he has played or worked for rather than any evidence of independent coverage in third-party media sources.
The article has, additionally, spent 18 full months with WP:BLP-violating nonsense like "He is currently an ambulance driver in Alberta. He once smiled, but really didn't like it. Chris also had the pleasure of providing the Rebels staff with water in their mouths." in it until I found and poleaxed it just now, which isn't a deletion rationale in and of itself but does speak to how many responsible editors have actually seen the article.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable without much more and better sourcing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Whenever I see an AfD on a article on an obscure hockey player such as this, I tend to flicker my gaze to the top of the screen to see if Dolovis -- an editor eventually community-banned from new article creation, and responsible for creating thousands of articles on NN subjects, often in direct defiance of notability guidelines -- was the perp. Bingo! In any event, there's never been any iteration of NHOCKEY under which this player, whose career was multiple rungs below top flight, has been considered presumptively notable. Ravenswing 12:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Red Deer Advocate gave extensive SIGCOV of him, e.g. 1 2 3 4 5 6. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Also this story from the Las Vegas Review-Journal. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are four significant article about him provided above. 1 4 5 6. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 12:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Local coverage in the home market of the team he played for isn't sufficient in and of itself to give a minor-league hockey player a GNG-based exemption from WP:NHOCKEY. We'd have to see nationalizing coverage, not just the Red Deer Advocate alone. Bearcat (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

coverage isn't sufficient ... [for a] GNG-based exemption from WP:NHOCKEY – ?? NHOCKEY is an inclusionary criterion, not an exlusionary one (and a broken one at that -- if you meet NHOCKEY, you may be notable if you pass GNG; if you do not meet NHOCKEY, you may be notable if you pass GNG). The only thing that matters is whether he meets GNG, and national coverage is not necessary for that. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as a distinction between "inclusionary" and "exclusionary" SNGs. GNG does not just count up the number of media hits and keep anybody who's surpassed an arbitrary number, without considering the context in which the media hits exist — as I've said more than once, if GNG just concerned itself with the number of sources a person had, and didn't care about whether the context of what the person was getting covered for was actually of any broad or sustained public interest or not, then we would have to keep an article about my mother's former neighbour who once got a blip of media coverage for finding a pig in her front yard. (Hell, if all GNG cared about was the number of media hits that could be found, and didn't measure for whether the context of what those hits existed for passed any notability criteria or not, then I would even be able to claim that I qualified for an article.) So media coverage doesn't just have to hit some arbitrary number of clippings, and also has to verify passage of one or more notability criteria. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sport-specific sub criteria is just leftover stuff from before WP:NSPORTS2022 that wasn't participation based (all of the participation criteria was removed). None of the individual sport guidelines have been updated with replacement criteria so we're pretty much just left with skeletonized guidelines that offer unhelpful advice like likely to be notable if they've been inducted into the hall of fame. There's isn't even any guidance currently on football, gridiron football, or baseball. In regards to NHOCKEY, the only NHL guidance mentions first-round draft picks, which is obviously too strict given all of the blue links at 2017 NHL entry draft (and there's never been an overabundance of hockey players anyway). ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Right now, it looks like Wayne Gretzky fails NHOCKEY. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He does fail NHOCKEY. I suggest an AfD. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV does not exclude local coverage, and makes no mention of national coverage. Flibirigit (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Local coverage isn't excluded from usability, and I never said it was. But local coverage is not necessarily enough to hand a person a GNG-based exemption from normal inclusion criteria all by itself — unelected candidates are not exempted from NPOL just because they can show a handful of local campaign coverage in the local media of the area where they were running without any evidence of broader significance, actors who don't otherwise pass NACTOR's achievement-based criteria are not exempted from them just because they can show a handful of "local aspiring actor gets first bit part in movie" coverage in their hometown media without any evidence of broader significance, high school and junior league athletes are not exempted from the inclusion criteria for their sport just because they can show a handful of hometown local coverage without any evidence of broader significance, local bands are not exempted from having to pass WP:NMUSIC just because they got a few hits of "local band plays local pub" in their local newspaper without any evidence of broader significance, and on and so forth.
If a person is properly established as passing an SNG on an actual inclusion criterion, then we genuinely don't care whether their sourcing is "local" or "national" — but if a person's coverage isn't establishing passage of any specific inclusion criteria, and instead you're trying to argue that they get over GNG purely on the number of media hits that exist in and of itself, then a local vs. national coverage test does come into play, because lots of people can show some evidence of local coverage in contexts that don't pass encyclopedic standards of permanent international significance. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON and WP:WALLOFTEXT may apply here. Flibirigit (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the only coverage were a couple of articles from Neiszer's home town of Craik, Saskatchewan stating that he made it to a WHL team, I'd probably agree that he does not meet GNG. But he has much more extensive coverage from Red Deer, Alberta, which is not his home town (or even his home province) plus significant coverage from Las Vegas, Nevada, which is not even his home country. That's not to mention a lot of insignificant coverage in other newspapers in other ciites. So he actually has not only national coverage, but international coverage. Rlendog (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Red Deer Advocate is a perfectly acceptable source for demonstrating significant coverage for notability, which has no "national coverage" requirement, and the Las Vegas Review-Journal provides an additional source of significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment while not really an international outlet, there are at least 6 articles from the Red Deer Advocate here which would count towards notability. However, my problem is that they do not seem to be very in-depth which makes me wonder whether there is enough material to write an interesting article that goes beyond the Hockey stats. --hroest 19:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Martial arts

Articles for deletion

2005 European Taekwondo Championships

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted back in 2022. Same issues still apply, but an editor continues to recreate the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Martial arts, and Latvia. Shellwood (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly block the editor in question for adding un-sourced content. JTZegers (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I feel that there is a chance for more sources to exist, but through newspapers.com all I got was one mention that is at least somewhat decent coverage. Ping if sources are found but does not seem like enough for notability. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is no different from the other 26 European Taekwondo Championships. I think the information on the website www.taekwondodata.com is sufficient. If additional sources are needed, is it not possible to request additional sources, not to delete this page? Deleting this page or blocking me is a non-solution. To write something about this page, I think you should take a look at the world taekwondo championship pages or other continental taekwondo tournaments. Many of them have been created this way.Pehlivanmeydani

Matt Sayles

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

Lost 3 of his 4 official fights in the UFC before being released. Doesn't seem to pass WP:MMA or WP:GNG. Highest rank achieved on FightMatrix is #148. (https://www.fightmatrix.com/fighter-search/?fName=Matt+Sayles). I'd like to know what you guys think. Lekkha Moun (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and California. Shellwood (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't find anything on Google to support WP:GNG. For notability for mixed martial arts, Sayles isn't in a top ten rank as suggested by WP:NMMA. Here are his profiles at Fightmatrix and Sherdog. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 09:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per PacificDepths. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald M. Taganashi

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

The subject completely fails WP:SPORTCRIT. The page reads like a vanity page with non-significant and non-independent sources. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Also the article to have been weirdly moved from Draftspace to Mainspace by User:AriaTess (blocked indefinitely), a sockpuppet of (User:JRM2018 - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JRM2018. It seems like User:AriaTess moved it without being properly accepted by an admin. See edit here: [58]. Lekkha Moun (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet GNG. Nswix (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources that meet general notability guidelines. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 04:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don Madge

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

The subject is an MMA fighter, but fails WP:MMA and does not have significant coverage. Event annoucement/results and passing mentions are not sufficient to meet WP:GNG.

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reasons:

Lekkha Moun (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and South Africa. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 2 May 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

WRC Rally Magazine

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

This article clearly fails the Wikipedia Notability guidelines for TV. This is a TV show that seems to have been a one-off for the Monte Carlo Rally, lasting for just one season. This smells of promotion, too. There also aren't any citations, and there has been a citations tag since December 2009, 16 years ago. This article must be deleted. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Speed, cannot find anything substantive online Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Motorsport. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A very WP:MILL pre-race show; just stated the latest results, did some profiles and previewed the next race, all of which are well expected and basic out of any pre-race show. And I agree with the nominator's PROMO concerns, as the article was created when it aired. Nathannah • 📮 18:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom/others. Reluctant to redirect because it is a pretty generic title, and I'm sure that there are magazines (like the paper ones) about WRC. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

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

Categories

Rugby league

Stuart Arundel

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

Contested Prod. Appears to fail WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. J Mo 101 (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National team appearances at Rugby League World Cups

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

Unsourced article which is a WP:NOTSTATS violation. Mn1548 (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (possibly Merge): The "Team appearances by tournament" section, could be added to the main RLWC article (possibly combined into a single table (with sources added and a footnote to indicate format change)) and would be more informative than the "top four finishes" table currently in that article. The rest of the stats here show nothing that a reader could not work out for themselves from the "...by tournament" tables. There are no sources given, and although a search indicates that the information could be gathered from database sites, I have not found any sources with significant coverage discussing info like the performances by hosts or previous finalists or that this is any way notable. EdwardUK (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rugby League World Cup records. Unnecessary content fork - any tables supported by reliable sources can be re-added to the main records article. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby union

Templates for discussion

Softball

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 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Softballbox7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Categories for discussion

Tennis

Wrestling

Hex (professional wrestling)

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

No notable tag team. Worked on independent level, no enough in-deep coverage from reliable sources, just WP:ROUTINE results [59] HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Wrestling. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Palmer

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

No notable wrestler. Worked for 2 years as develoment talent. No enough in-deep coverage around her from reliable sources, just WP:ROUTINE results. Since she retired, the article will be no larger. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Wrestling, and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet Wikipedia standards for notability.--IndyNotes (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing notable about her career especially as a professional wrestler. --Mann Mann (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the wrestler doesn't meet GNG. Sports career or media coverage cannot help here. --NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WXW Diamond Division Championship

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

No notable pro wrestling title. Just a regional title, no coverage from reliable sources. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Wrestling. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this isn't even the top womens wrestling championship for this promotion. Fails GNG.

Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Raynor

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

COI/UPE editing, potential autobiography. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- this is an article about a non notable wrestler. Couldn't find any coverage in independent, WP:RS sources. There are references, but they're mostly fight logs.AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourcing i pull up are databases, social media and primary sourcing/websites. Nothing used now in the article that isn't a database. Non-notable individual. Oaktree b (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and seems to be an autobiography despite claim of it not being one. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 01:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Wrestling, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass GNG and SIGCOV. Almost certainly an autobiography too. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sportspeople