Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alopua Petoa (2nd nomination)

Alopua Petoa

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Alopua Petoa
• Articles for deletion/Alopua Petoa (2nd nomination)

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Alopua Petoa (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:GNG. All current references in the article are trivial mentions at best. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
• Strongest possible keep - “trivial mentions”? You mean, a pagelong interview with FIFA Oceania and enough coverage to fill multiple paragraphs, and being the most capped player in his country’s history? Are you trying to imply that no Tuvalu footballer ever gets a page no matter what his/her accomplishments just because Tuvalu doesn’t have much online media presence? An even better question, AFD was created to help make Wikipedia a better place. Do you really believe for one second that wiping out an article of this length with this many sources helps Wikipedia? 172.58.110.253 (talk) 06:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
• Keep Although reference 2 is titled as an interview, it gives a lot of background coverage which should be enough to count towards WP:GNG. Though WP:GNG says that "multiple sources are generally expected", given the scarcity of information about Tuvalu available online, Petoa's accomplishments (most capped Tuvaluan), and the extent of the article, I think an exception is warranted here. The two Tuvaluan Games championships mentioned in the article on the interview also meets "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" in WP:BIO (at least within the realm of football of Oceania). EternalNomad (talk) 07:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: the interview is not by Fifa Oceania, but from a weebly-hosted blog interested in "non"-Fifa-affiliated countries. Probably shouldn't be considered a reliable source, but in any case shouldn't be misrepresented to bolster the "keep" side. Fram (talk) 09:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  I’d question the assertion that it is a blog. Weebly is a site-hosting service in general, and not exclusively for blogs. The site includes name and contact information, which reliable sources typically have. Furthermore, the interview was picked up by the official Friends of Tuvalu (a well-known website covering Tuvalu football) twitter page, so I don’t think there is any reason to believe it is made up. 172.58.30.172 (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  You may question it to your hearts' delight, but the page itself says "It is a bilingual blog in English and Portuguese. Giving the opportunity for other people to be informed about football in those regions of Oceania." Feel free to link to that "Friends of Tuvalu" site here so we can judge it. Fram (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, there are two tweets from related organizations. The Netherlands Oceania Support Foundation tweet is here: [1] and has website [2]. The Tuvalu Friends organization is here: [3] and has site [4]. NOSFoundation is cited by Solomon Times here [5] so there is absolutely no reason to believe they are not reliable. 172.58.176.152 (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG. The "FIFA source" is in fact not from FIFA, and it hardly seems to be like a reliable source. --Angelo (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)