Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jojo Tikoisuva

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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jojo Tikoisuva

[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)

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for teams so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Article does need better referencing, but your attack seems to be on all Major League Rugby and not on individual articles. Moonraker (talk) 07:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't believe any of the sources on the page or that I can find are 'substantial coverage', that are independent of the source/tournament. These players in my opinion do not qualify for WP:GNG along with WP:NRU as stated on my talk page. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moonraker, as has been discussed here can you show which of the sources in the article provide enough significant coverage for it to pass WP:GNG or if there are other sources that you believe enough to allow it to pass WP:GNG can you provide them. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonraker: Please refrain from casting aspersions about the nominator's intent unless you have evidence and keep your analysis to the article in question. "Artcle does need better referencing" is a WP:SOURCESEXIST argument, please show they exist. Thank you, Yosemiter (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yosemiter this is not a court, it is a discussion. The nominator has proposed a huge number of articles on rugby players for deletion and what links them all is that they have played in Major League Rugby. Moonraker (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moonraker, Again, this was because these players don't qualify for WP:NRU AND WP:GNG. There is very little coverage of the league and the players in the league, and so I have AfD'd the ones that I believe don't qualify. There have be many that I have found that don't qualify for WP:NRU but there is enough coverage to qualify for WP:GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete – This player actually does have one pretty good WP:GNG source Walker: For NOLA Gold's Jojo Tikoisuva, the game of rugby helped him beat the game of life in The Times-Picayune/The New Orleans Advocate. However, everything else is transaction WP:ROUTINE coverage with a basic synopsis listing clubs he has played with lacking depth or WP:RS. The player has made some lower tier national team appearances, if he is on a team that ever makes it to a larger stage, then the player may receive some significant coverage, but that would be WP:TOOSOON right now. Yosemiter (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Times-Picayune is a major regional paper and a longish-article about this one person is exactly what we want to establish notability. The article could certainly stand improving but that is not a reason to delete in this case. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: While that source is the reason I put "weak" in my !vote, WP:42 does explicitly state We need multiple sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail. I would prefer at least one more article like the Times-Picayune feature in my opinion (or at least a couple more independent WP:RS sources with significant coverage where he may not be the main topic). Yosemiter (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yosemiter:, remember that WP:42 is just a handy essay. Its usage of "significant" is only a suggestion and not definitive. In this particular case, a major metropolitan daily devoting >700 words to a profile of a player in a non-major sport is ...more than a trivial mention by any reasonable interpretation. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: Agreed that the single source is significant depth of coverage, but even WP:GNG, which is guideline and not an essay, says multiple sources are generally expected. If the one single independent RS source of good depth convinces you this subject meets GNG, then I do not think anything I would argue here would change your mind. It is not like I think this subject fails GNG with flying colors, just that it is on the lower side of the subjective line since it lacks the multiple part. Yosemiter (talk) 06:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There has been one good source we've found, but it doesn't mean he passes WP:GNG as there's no additional secondary independent coverage here. We don't create biographies on the basis that a local newspaper wrote a feature story on someone. SportingFlyer T·C 13:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - my understanding of WP:GNG is that you need to have more than one good source Spiderone 15:55, 6 December 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.