Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madeinox–BRIC–AR Canelas


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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Madeinox–BRIC–AR Canelas

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable cycling team: fails to meet the WP:GNG or even get close. The only source is database-esque, indiscriminate, and only gives the roster (not significant). WP:BEFORE yielded nothing beyond the roster except for the fact that they were in the 3rd tier of UCI road racing for a few seasons. The relevant SNG at WP:NCYCLING says Significant coverage is likely to exist for a team if it [is] a men's road team in the 1st (UCI WorldTeam), 2nd (UCI ProContinental), or 3rd (UCI Continental) tier. However, I don't think that significant coverage is likely to exist for this article specifically because it only competed in the first two seasons, it is far from meeting the GNG, and the team did not place well (going off of 2005–06 UCI Europe Tour, complete standings might be lost to time).

The article has also been problematic and tagged with a reference needed template for 16 years. It cannot be fixed. — Danre98 ( talk ^ contribs ) 06:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cycling and Portugal. — Danre98 ( talk ^ contribs ) 06:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I have found some sources for team and their results. I will do some digging to find some more but the article does meet WP:NCYCLING. Paulpat99 (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking at this! I am aware that it meets WP:NCYCLING. However, there is zero coverage that I could find that is even close to meeting the GNG. This includes all of the sources you added (none significant; either a mention in a results list, or an indiscriminate stats database). I believe this (and the fact that they were in the lowest tier under the SNG) adequately shows that the presumption that it will eventually meet the GNG is unwarranted.
 * In addition, the (discussion-supported) Q1 on the FAQ for the sports SNG states that The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it (emphasis mine). As I stated in the nom, the article has been tagged with some flavor of references needed template for 16 years (the only one since 2010 being a link to the UCI website). It's been deficient for such a long time that there's been sufficient time to locate the required coverage for an article. The SNG should not stop the article from being deleted. — Danre98 ( talk ^ contribs ) 01:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Relisting to assess new sources added to the article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep More sources now, meets WP:NCYCLING per above. Also just because there has been sufficient time to add more sources does not mean none exist, only that no one has actually set out to do so. Seacactus 13 (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * For clarification, my point with 'the sufficient time' was not that no sources exist (extraordinarily difficult to prove anyway), my point was that since there's been sufficient time to locate sources (and other factors), the SNG should not replace the GNG in this case (per FAQ quoted above). — Danre98 ( talk ^ contribs ) 22:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.