Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022–23 Indian Women's League season

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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, I'm happy to draftify Star Mississippi 12:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022–23 Indian Women's League season (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)

Another ridiculous contested redirect, with zero in-depth coverage from independent sources. So now we're here. Onel5969 TT me 16:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is it ridiculous when the source is from the website of the governing body itself?! Ghdfghmp (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG requires reliable sources independent of the subject which the governing body wouldn't be Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify Delete The sources available at this time are just regurgitating the announcement of the new season, and there is not yet any independent analysis to meet WP:GNG. There may be better articles in the future., so follow WP:SHOWSPOTENTIAL and hope for the best. BruceThomson (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG and NSEASON. All the references in the article and above ROUTINE sports annoucements about groupings and the start of the season.
No sources in article or above are IS RS SIGCOV. BEFORE showed nothing with IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.
Oppose Draft as a backdoor to deletion.  // Timothy :: talk  13:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per SA Julio. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to source analysis above. While I would love to see women's sport receive a greater share of the coverage, unfortunately it is not supported by the sources at this time. Hopefully it is just a WP:TOOSOON situation, which won't be the case in future. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sensitive to the poor quality of the sources as they stand, but I want to point out that the season is scheduled to begin in less than 10 days, at which point common sense says that the body of sources will change considerably, and recreation (if this is deleted) is almost certain. So what encyclopedic purpose do we serve by deleting it in the interim, or by spending a considerable period arguing over it? Just food for thought; not going to engage in depth here. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the point of the WP:TOOSOON concept is that it's too much of a burden for us to guess whether an article will have significant coverage in the future. We don't want to have to come back in a couple of months and say "Still no significant coverage, should we wait a bit more?" Instead we deal with what we can see right now. Of course, there are also the WP:SNG guidelines that allow us to bypass the requirement of significant coverage in some cases, but this article doesn't meet any of those. BruceThomson (talk) 05:56, 16 April 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.