Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tio Cipot


 * 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. ✗ plicit  11:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Tio Cipot

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

Fails WP:GNG, no sources were provided that would indicate significant coverage, only the regular match reports / contract extension reports Snowflake91  (talk) 09:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 2.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 09:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football,  and Slovenia. Shellwood (talk) 09:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, reasonably well-known footballer as seen through reasonable enough coverage in for instance, , and the like Geschichte (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Those are routine reports like contract extensions or match reports, you can find this for literally any player that signed a pro contract with the club. Snowflake91  (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per above. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 20. By the time I finish writing this, another twenty will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "Other WikiProjects doesn't delete 20 articles per day" is not a reason for keep, and you literally copy/paste that same reply at every AfD, for example at Articles for deletion/Pascal Estrada, but at least there you managed to provide some in-depth coverage, unlike in this article. Where is the in-depth coverage of this player that goes beyond "Tip Cipot extended his contract until 2026" and a regular match reports? Looks like people are just trying to mass-keep those poor articles because of their disagreement with the WP:NSPORTS new notability standards, so they try to provide some "in-depth" sources which in reality are just routine reports...how about you create just 1 well-written, long article with many sources per day, instead of creating 20 full-stub, half-done, one-sentence articles per day about barely notable or non-notable footballers? Snowflake91  (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. The "reasonable enough coverage" above is 1. NZS: routine contract extension announcement that has 2 non-quote sentences on him] ❌; 2. RTVSLO: another routine announcement of the same contract extension, with 2 of the 4 non-quote sentences on him being essentially the same info as in the first source ❌; 3. Slovenske Novice: pure interview/quote summaries, less than a sentence of independent secondary commentary ❌. Definitely does not meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence of notability. Ref 1 and 2 above are not SIGCOV, 3 is OK but not enough on its own. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, the source analysis above shows that this player fails WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of significant coverage. It may also be time to reevaluate Geschichte's Autopatrolled right if they are still creating database-sourced sports stubs and presenting match reports as SIGCOV for players. –dlthewave ☎ 05:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.