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. Subsequent to nomination, sources have been found/added that demonstrate notability of the topic. (WP:HEY)
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions) 15:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)reply
No references, and so cannot verify whether the team satisfies the team notability guideline in
cycling notability guidelines. Moved to draft space once as undersourced, and moved back to article space without a reference. PROD then removed without providing a reference. The team does not
inherit notability from one member. Its notability must be verified with a
reliable source.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 03:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete or move back to draft at best. It exists, but there is no evidence of notability. Best
Alexandermcnabb (
talk) 04:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep Please familiarize yourself with
WP:CYCLING.
UCI Continental teams pass notability, which is what this is. Just because it is currently a stub and unreferenced does not mean it is non notable.--
Seacactus 13 (
talk) 19:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Look at the recent changes, several reliable and verifying sources have been added.
Seacactus 13 (
talk) 04:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep New team, but there seems to be a ton of articles via Google, albeit in Spanish, such as
this,
this,
this,
this and
this to name a few. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 20:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment to
User:Lugnuts - If you can supply the reference, then the article can be kept.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 03:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment - See
Heymann test. It is unfortunate that the author and one other editor apparently thought that a special notability test overrides or is an exemption from
verifiability. They should familiarize themselves with
the verifiability policy rather than incorrectly lecturing a reviewer about a special notability guideline. But
the Heymann test is passed.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 15:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Agree Keep in current state, but with a nod to
Robert McClenon, whose call on the original article and available English sources I would still support. Best
Alexandermcnabb (
talk) 16:50, 27 November 2020 (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.