Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyme Lulaj

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 no consensus. The discussion hinges on whether or not there is significant coverage of the topic. I find no consensus on this point, hence no consensus in the deletion discussion. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cyme Lulaj[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Europe, Albania, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @GiantSnowman: "Introducing Cyme and Sabina, two stars of Albanian football!" in Dritare looks promising (two paragraphs dedicated to Cyme Lulaj plus photos) but "bloggy". This 2017 Panorama Sport interview "Scored 10 goals in one match – Lulaj: 'We overdid it a bit'" looks promising (one paragraph of prose plus two paragraphs of quotes) and slightly less bloggy, but some people will say "it's an interview". For Albanian speakers, we also have this Top Channel TV interview of Lulaj and another player, which doesn't count for notability but at least confirms she is TV interview-worthy. (I'm still thinking about it.) Cielquiparle (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite enough, but close, in my view... Giant Snowman 19:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Cielquiparle. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the characterisation of the Dritare source as "bloggy" is a bit harsh! It's listed at List of newspapers in Albania as an online news portal and when I googled it there was various Linkedin pages for its journalists, so it's run to professional standards. Cielquiparle is right that some editors do try to disallow interviews but that's always been bunkum, frankly. I'm not too sure why the TV interview source is being discounted either? Looks okay coverage to me, albeit I dunno exactly what's being said. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me! Cielquiparle (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews that don't provide any significant secondary independent commentary cannot be used for GNG. The Panorama Sport interview only has around 3 brief sentences by the interviewer, so N. The TV interview has a little discussion outside the interview, but I don't speak Albanian so other than picking up a couple "Cyme"s (and "30 Seconds to Mars"...) it's hard to gauge how much is secondary direct coverage of Lulaj versus primary comments or focused on the other players. The fact that she was interviewed at all has zero bearing on notability as it is not a criterion of ANYBIO or GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - that's 2 paragraphs or more in 2 reputable Albanian-language news sources plus a TV interview, good enough for me. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or redirect. There is one marginal source (Dratire) but GNG requires multiple pieces of SIRS SIGCOV, and I am not finding this for Lulaj. JoelleJay (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - The Dritare source is quite good, although I agree that it's probably not enough by itself to meet the GNG. Let's see if an editor can find something more to bring it up to our notability standards. Jogurney (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't consider "fails WP:GNG" with no further explanation to be a valid reason for deletion. Partofthemachine (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of established WP:SIGCOV - one, two or a mere handful aren't just enough imho. Angelo (talk) 23:15, 25 January 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.