Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meron Abraham

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient. If someone wants to work on this in draft space to see if sources eventuate, happy to provide. Star Mississippi 18:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meron Abraham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Question: you haven't mentioned this in the nom; did you search for other sources including local sources? Jack4576 (talk) 15:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I did a cursory Google search (in depth) reviewed multiple pages. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I find it odd there are five articles that I created put up by same nom very recently. Are you looking through my article creations or Eritrean cyclists? This could be considered Wikihounding, as there looks to be some pretty obvious targeting. I will not start accusations yet, but it is starting to look this way. Therefore, I hope this pattern ends soon. Seacactus 13 (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  These are essentially bad quality articles that fall under the same topic, Eritrean cyclists. To suggest anything more than that would be ridiculous. Instead of declaring this, why not work on improving the bad quality articles you have created? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep National champion, continental champion and winner of a 2.1 level race. Seacactus 13 (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Alas, the merit of our Eritrean velocipedist, meeting NATHLETE standards, finds little succour in the face of SIGCOV's insufficiency. This does, however, impel me to cast my vote 'Keep', invoking the 'Ignore all rules' principle. It's a regrettable tableau of our policies, unintentionally playing the racist hand. I yearn for the dawn where our encyclopedic house embraces broader inclusivity, and not a parochial world view. Jack4576 (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not a valid keep reason. JoelleJay (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No SIGCOV sources have been found (either here or from my own search), so NSPORT and GNG are not met. JoelleJay (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Source in article is stats, nothing else has been found. Keep votes did not provide sources and resorted to the invalid IAR claim to keep a BLP without sources. WP:BLP clearly states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  21:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NCYC bullet point 5.

Won a UCI category race (minimum classification 1.1 / 2.1, including Continental and National Championships). I am confident in SIGCOV as the sources used were enough to back up this article. WP:NBIO may be not satisfied but that is off the plate, as more adequate guidelines exist for sportspeople. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 03:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To add, WP:GNG is to show presumed notability. It is not a necessary or sufficient condition for notability (but to be fair, in run of the mill cases, it is). 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 03:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline for sportspeople requires GNG to be met, and to contain citation to SIGCOV in IRS sources, regardless of meeting a sport-specific criterion. Since the subject meets no other SNG criteria, GNG is necessary for notability. JoelleJay (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are right I looked at the FAQ. I still vote keep for the time being to allow more sources to be uncovered. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's still the WP:SPORTSBASIC requirement that a source providing SIGCOV must be cited in the article; so far we don't have anything approaching SIGCOV here. JoelleJay (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2023 (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.