Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daisy Nakaziro

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Nakaziro

[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:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Africa, and Uganda. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify (to not say keep) – Found sources → [1][2][3] – Nominator, seeing the current appearance of the article is not enough to nominate. Please, search for sources before doing this type of nominations.--MonFrontieres (talk) 14:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. The ones indicated by MF are two about a transfer and one which is SIGCOV - together not enough. Giant Snowman 19:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @
  2022 Africa Women Cup of Nations and she could generate news during these days.--MonFrontieres (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  This ping did not work - you need to add a signature in the same edit as the ping. Giant Snowman 09:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per sources found by Monfrontieres and his 2022 African Women Cup of Nations reasoning. Also, I found these sources which show her notability in Uganda: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: More sources have been found. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not all of the sources above are SIGCOV, but enough of them are to demonstrate notability. Giant Snowman 10:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG ?
Source assessment table:
The Sports Nation 1		? I cannot find info on their editing policies or who their writers are	~ transactional, but with a substantial amount of background detail	? Unknown
UGSports 1	the author is a FIFA licensed agent and therefore has a vested interest in promoting players	? same issue as source 1	~ barely more than a listicle, but does have substantial info	✘ No
Swift Sports Uganda	?	Swift Sports blog post	~ Roughly the same material as source 1	✘ No
Voice of Bugerere 1	? no info on author	? same as with source 1	~ match recap, but does go into somewhat more detail on her background	? Unknown
UGSports 2	but note that articles from the same newspaper are considered one source	? same issues as source 1	~ transactional, but with a substantial amount of background detail	? Unknown
Voice of Bugerere 2	?	? same issues as other VoB source	transactional	✘ No
Football256	interview with little independent commentary	? same issues as other sources	interview	✘ No
The Sports Nation 2	reprint of press release	? see source 1	reprint of press release; transactional	✘ No
The Sports Nation 3	but note that articles from the same newspaper are considered one source	? see source 1	~ recap, but does have nontrivial commentary on her	? Unknown
NIM Sport UG	press release	news aggregator, digital marketing hub	transactional	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

If the sites are determined to be reliable then I think this is a weak keep. JoelleJay (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2022 (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.