Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Cycling: Difference between revisions

Line 11: Line 11:

==Cycling==

<!– New AFD’s should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line –>

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Cycling. 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|Cycling|~~~~}} 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 Cycling. 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.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Sports.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

This list includes sublists of deletion debates on articles related to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cycling.

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only reference currently in the article is a database, and all I see elsewhere are more databases and some mentions in articles about other things. Let’srun (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

I didn’t find any WP:SIGCOV about her. Redirect to Ukraine at the 2004 Summer Olympics#Cycling is an usual WP:ATD for Olympians. Svartner (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

I didn’t find anything about her. There are several other people with the same name, apparently making the search more difficult. Svartner (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Despites her social media profiles and photos, I didn’t find any content with WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

I didn’t find any WP:SIGCOV about her Svartner (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

I didn’t find any WP:SIGCOV about her. Svartner (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subject doesn’t have the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let’srun (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let’srun (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is currently the longest article by size on Wikipedia, to the point that it struggles to load! There’s quite a lot of issues with this page, and I don’t think they can really be solved without starting from scratch. For one, there is no prose here. It is just a giant dump of data and no indication of what races are important. As such, there are no secondary sources, it’s mostly just the pages of procyclingstats.com/firstcycling.com have their results table scraped and copied here. Why is this page needed when it’s all just taken from two race result websites?

Additionally a good chunk of the tables are just tables transcended from other wikipages, making it feel redundant. Since there’s no secondary sources, it’s also a fail of WP:GNG – what, if any, of this is of any important in the cycling world, when even the majority of the sea of attempted hyperlinks are dead? If you compare this (and tbh, the other 20XX in cycling pages) to articles like 2025 in film you can see what a page of this should look like, but I don’t think it’s possible to get from the current state to that without a wipe because it’s impossible to tell what races are actually notable. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FYI my comments below. Deletion projects such as this one, can get things mixed a little. Never hurts to have a look at how previous years havebeen done. — Maile (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a valid navigation list. NOTSTATS doesn’t apply because the data is contextualized. I see no reason to merge with men’s cycling, as women and men compete separately, so, they should have separate articles. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Another Lugstub with no WP:SIGCOV / indicative of WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Cycling, and France. Svartner (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: [[3]] and [[4]] appear to contain WP:SIGCOV. Let’srun (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE and WP:HEY. Between the two sources and four external links already in the article, a few clicks on Google, and what Let’srun has found, it’s enough to push this BLP into notability. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete– is the current lean towards keep due to her winning 3rd at the National Championships France WE – Road Race ? as additional searching shows more of generic sports stat pages Bearian?. Lorraine Crane (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Third isn’t bad. Bearian (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, coverage stems from a single event and she did not have success internationally. Of course, the “links already in the article” do not contribute to notability. Geschichte (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG per Let’srun. Coverage is not from the same event. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe both pieces do cover the 2011 national champs. Geschichte (talk) 08:03, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is about the 2011 French National Road Race Championships and the second one is the 2011 UCI Road World Championships. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The Le Parisien coverage is essentially an interview (it is made up largely of quotations from the subject, EDIT: and none of the people touting this as “SIGCOV” have rebutted this point – it doesn’t matter how much coverage there is in a piece if it is all ultimately from the subject), not independent coverage. The L’Equipe coverage is not SIGCOV – it’s two brief paras. Everything else is the wide-sweeping databases excluded by WP:SPORTSCRIT. Fails WP:NSPORTS. This is a WP:LUGSTUB from the infamous Lugnuts (eventually indef banned for incivility) who went through databases at high speed turning listings into cookie-cutter single-sentence articles, and is exactly the kind of article that we don’t need and shouldn’t keep. WP:HEY clearly doesn’t apply here because nobody has improved the article, nor has any likelihood of doing so been shown. FOARP (talk) 08:34, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG Per sources presented above which as stated contains SIGCOV.BabbaQ (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage is neither significant nor sustained. Both L’Equipe and Le Parisien are brief blurbs that lack the level of independent secondary commentary we require, with most of the content being quotes or primary observation. All we have is this human-interest-driven reporting from <3 month period in 2011, that just isn’t enough. JoelleJay (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cycling Proposed deletions

[edit]

Cycling Proposed deletions

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Leave a Comment