Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamad Siraj Tamim

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 redirect‎ to Athletics at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metres. If those presumed sources are found in the future, we can spin this back out. asilvering (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Mohamad Siraj Tamim (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 )

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. Eliminated in 1st round of heats. LibStar (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Lebanon. LibStar (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  delete. fails all criteria for WP:NTRACK and google search brought up only one source: 1, that does not even have any significant coverage of him. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 23:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Note that the Arabic name for this subject is محمد سراج تميم, and I'm seeing multiple Google hits for that name. Subject was the Lebanese national 100 m record-holder (aka "the fastest person in Lebanon") in the post-Internet age, so I'd be very surprised if there wasn't coverage. See for example this BBC Arabic article where the subject is profiled: [1] --Habst (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. 201.226.200.41 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:03, 16 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep based on the BBC Arabic coverage, which makes the article pass SPORTCRIT, Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject. --Habst (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×ばつ ☎ 12:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Delete It is not relevant in the sports field. 190.219.102.54 (talk) 02:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  Note that this IP has been blocked for block evasion. --Habst (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 25 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Redirect to Athletics at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metres as a valid ATD if more sources are not found. --Enos733 (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Another source: "اليوم الاتحادي بالقوى: تميم يعادل رقمه في ال100 م" [Federal Day in Power: Tamim equals his record in the 100m]. As-Safir (in Arabic). Adds important context that Tamim was a national record-breaker in 2003. I think there should be more from the same paper, so I am feeling more confident about the keep view now. --Habst (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Weak Keep, based on the sources presented by Habst. Searching his name in Arabic gives a couple other short articles as well. I think one could write an WP:NBASIC-compliant article with what's available, not to mention there's a good chance that if we looked at Lebanese newspapers from the time (not all are archived) we'd very likely find more. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Also note that two of the three "delete" comments are sockpuppets and should be discounted. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Redirect. The BBC Arabic article has maybe two sentences of coverage, with everything else being in quotes. Nowhere near SIGCOV. The Federal Day in Power source has one sentence on him, that is trivial. JoelleJay (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  Invoking WP:BASIC to combine the sources, that means we have at least three sentences on the subject, enough for a paragraph not including any future coverage found which almost certainly exists. I think that's barely enough to constitute SIGCOV still. --Habst (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  Trivial sources do not count towards BASIC, and the article is still required to cite a source of SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  WP:BASIC says, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Because both of the provided sources are independent and non-trivial (subject is a primary focus of the article), it's a valid application. --Habst (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2025 (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.