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

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. Consensus is sourcing isn't sufficient, especially for a BLP Star Mississippi 18:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alopua Petoa

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
How is a retweet from an organization intending to promote Oceania football, that is apparently reliable because they were used as a source for one page on a website that itself has no indication of editorial policy ("an electronic gateway to the most recent news and information available on the web" sounds more like a link aggregator than an source that actually features original reporting), meant to show anything? Besides, said Solomon Times article is word-for-word copied from the NOS Foundation page so it might as well be a press release. (The "Tuvalu Friends" retweet is even worse.) eviolite (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete. Only non-trivial source here is, as noted above, absolutely unaffiliated with FIFA and a fan blog run by one non-subject-matter-expert with no editorial overlook. eviolite (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No independent, reliable sourcing of this stub. No evidence of notability. No suggestion that his level of play meets any extant notability criteria. Ravenswing 00:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fan blogs are not reliable sources, period. Wikipedia is to be built on reliable sources, not blogs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Merge to Tuvalu national football team~~. As the highest scorer for their international team, and the most frequently selected for captain (tied), this is certainly a valid alternative to outright deletion (which I don't see the benefit of), per WP:ATD-M, and content history is certainly worth WP:PRESERVEing, should someone uncover sources from this small nation's small press options. -2pou (talk) 21:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated to keep above. Are people dismissing reference #4? Sure, it's from the Netherlands, but there are machine translation tools available... -2pou (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - By all means, then, apply them, and tell us what reference #4 says. (You might find, as I did, that it's a broken link, but sure, go for it.) Ravenswing 21:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I had a look at reference #4 from Wayback Machine, and I would not really call it as nothing more than a passing mention of the subject [6], the article itself is just mentioning the subject above and another player were to join an amateur Dutch team for training. Is that a "significant coverage" addressing the subject directly and in detail? Not really. --Angelo (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Angelo. I'll admit to being pretty crass in that comment given what I interpreted as a lazy nomination and gave a lazy response expecting not to do all the legwork, which was not fair. The source may not be longest, but even removing quotes, I'm seing over WP:100W, which, though an essay, is a measurement of "significant" that can one can choose to use or not. I use it seeing GNG as a low bar meant to keep the average Joe/company out, yet still pretty inclusive, being WP:NOTPAPER.
    Fully recognizing that others may not use the same measurement, though, I stand by the recommendation that if not kept, a merge to Tuvalu national football team be considered as the alternative given his high standing with the team and the fact that there is some coverage out there in the first place, which is much more than some of his teammates. -2pou (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes GNG. The source is independent and reliable.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Which specific sources do you claim are both reliable AND independent of the subject? Ravenswing 21:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Is this person (or whatever it's supposed to be) really notable? Do provide an answer if you can. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a genuine statement? Please be WP:CIVIL and respectful of other cultures/names as "or whatever it's supposed to be" comes off quite rude. You can clearly see that this is a person by taking a look at the article. -2pou (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, dude. "whatever it's supposed to be"? You need to seriously consider the implications of your comment here, and I'd strongly encourage you to strike it. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 12:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Editor self-identifies as autistic, FWIW. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No SIGCOV in RS. Hopefully keep !votes based on the blog coverage are just totally unaware of WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:N and will familiarize themselves before participating in another AfD... Otherwise we're dealing with either a severe WP:CIR issue or deliberate misrepresentation of source quality. JoelleJay (talk) 03:22, 31 May 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.