Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sepetaio Nokisi

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. In reading this discussion, I have given little weight to the assertion that Nokisi is the "football player of the year 2014" since it was based on a one-off twitter poll. With that and WP:AADD in mind, the delete !votes have it because evidence that he passes the WP:GNG has not been shown. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sepetaio Nokisi

[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) 22:42, 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) 22:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A page dedicated to him being named the national footballer of the year is manifestly nontrivial coverage. Clearly WP:BEFORE was not done. 172.58.110.253 (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Source 3 is a page about him being named Person of the Year, which certainly meets rule 5 of WP:ATHLETE. Although WP:GNG says that "multiple sources are generally expected", given the extreme scarcity of Tuvalu's online presence, I think it is reasonable to make an exception and presume that other offline sources exist. Also, WP:BIO says that a person is likely to be notable if "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor", which he has, and I think using this criterion is reasonable here. EternalNomad (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The aforementioned source seems to habe been copied from Fenui News, one of the main news outlets in Tuvalu: [1] I will replace the source on the page, but I think that is sufficient for the award to count in the context of WP:BIO. EternalNomad (talk) 03:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG, which is all that matters. The fact no multiple sources about the aforementioned "awards" can be available is just stating how relevant they can be in terms of notability in this context. --Angelo (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: The coverage in source three, one of few major news outlets in a country of ~12,000, is pretty significant. Some context should be considered for such a small nation: in a week of coverage, their news can be as small as five pages, and for the referenced piece, this athlete got the better part of a page. (Note that these news pieces are not readily available, these are from an archive of only seven). It is enough to believe that additional offline sources in one of the other newspapers has coverage. If nothing else, merging to Sport in Tuvalu should be a worst-case WP:ATD-M solution, but there is enough to keep, in my opinion. -2pou (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Tuvalu international footballers after further discussion of the source in question below since there are no notability requirements for a redirect, and with a pre-existing entry on the list, this seems a valid WP:ATD-R alternative. -2pou (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:GNG NealeWellington (talk) 08:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the rationale of EternalNomad above. Carrite (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearly some significant coverage, but no overriding consensus. The keep view wins the voting but doesn't really create a strong enough consensus right now with just the single source of significance presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is zero SIGCOV in independent RS here. The (March 9, 2015) Fenui announcement is un-bylined (the rest of the articles in the issue have authors), probably because it is an unattributed copy of this Feb 26 post from the Tuvalu football facebook group. Not that it was SIGCOV anyway, with just 40 words commenting on him -- 2 brief sentences -- the rest being direct quotes. Clearly does not meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 04:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@2pou, @EternalNomad, @NealeWellington, @Ortizesp, @Carrite JoelleJay (talk) 04:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that it is an unattributed copy is merely speculation (Fenui is a UN-recognized national newspaper). Furthermore, is typical for reputable news outlets to cite a Facebook/Twitter post as their source of information, but this does not affect the independence of the source. Although it is true that the article is un-bylined, contact information is clearly provided at the end of the release so I don't think that should affect the article's RS status. Whether or not it is SIGCOV can be debated (I think it very much is). EternalNomad (talk) 04:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is literally a direct copy of the facebook post (aside from the slight reordering of paragraphs that nonsensically splits a quote), not a citation; even the "Sepataito" typo is retained. It doesn't matter whether the host is a weekly e-newsletter or the New York Times; a word-for-word plagiarism of a press release unequivocally fails our requirements for GNG. I have no idea what you mean by Although it is true that the article is un-bylined, contact information is clearly provided at the end of the release so I don't think that should affect the article's RS status; there is no contact info in the Fenui article, and the contact info on the facebook post is from the TNFA -- so clearly eliminates it from being independent. Whether or not it is SIGCOV can be debated (I think it very much is). If you genuinely think that "With 40% of all votes the winner is Sepetaio Willie and according to the Tuvalu Football Fans he is the Tuvalu Football player of 2014. Nelesone and Sepetaio were both part of the National team that visited the Netherlands in 2013." is SIGCOV then I look forward to you writing a biography on me centered on my middle school spelling bee wins. JoelleJay (talk) 05:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article gives important factual information such as "Being part of Waitakere City FC for three years", which can (and is) all be added with sourcing into the article. That's what I consider SIGCOV. Again, whether or not it meets the threshold is a judgement call. If you can demonstrate that your middle school spelling bee wins garnered 10% of a week's coverage in a national newspaper, including information about your past activities, I'd be happy to write that biography. As for the contact information, the end of the newsletter clearly states that the reporters are Yvette D’Unienville, Semi Malaki Diana Semi, etc. As for the "direct copy", WP:GNG merely says "reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and Fenui News is a reliable source that is independent of the subject. The guideline says nothing about where the information "originated" from (which almost by definition must be affiliated with the subject in some way). EternalNomad (talk) 05:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a breathtakingly incorrect interpretation of the P&Gs. 1. The article gives important factual information such as "Being part of Waitakere City FC for three years", which can (and is) all be added with sourcing into the article. This reasoning fails WP:NOT, in particular As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. This is reiterated in various places on WP:N, along with the requirement that a single source "provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article." A single Tweet's worth of info is not "comprehensive". 2. Considering my hometown has over twice the population of Tuvalu and around the same area, I'm confident my coverage far exceeds in length, depth, sustainment, and geographic range the 40 words (out of 11 pages; roughly 0.7% of the e-newsletter) dedicated to "independent" commentary on Sepetaio. 3. The contact info is for the entire newsletter issue, not the particular story on Sepetaio. A publication listing its contributors does not make it a reliable source for everything. 4. As for the "direct copy", WP:GNG merely says "reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and Fenui News is a reliable source that is independent of the subject. A press release, no matter where it is reprinted, is not an independent source and cannot be used for notability purposes. And a press release that was plagiarized shouldn't be cited at all on wikipedia. JoelleJay (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Plagiarized might be a bit strong given what a press release is for and also since the post you linked provides a contact, and full permission may have been given (or even solicited by poster in some way). Looks like it was direct copied here as well: [2]. -2pou (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. This certainly gives less for the article to stand on. Aside from GNG, is your argument also that the aforementioned WP:BIO is not met (I think ANYBIO might have been the actual intended target)? I'm not convinced that I would discount that just yet, keeping relativity in mind, though I may be. It might be likened an MLB all-star selection, where the ultimate root of all selection announcements is the league itself.

Even if not, I don't see a reason against an alternative merge I proposed. If Sport in Tuvalu is too broad, an alternate merge to the List of Tuvalu international footballers with a footnote of the achievement. -2pou (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@2pou, I ignored the ANYBIO appeal because it was absurd. The types of honors that are meant to satisfy ANYBIO are like, winning a Best Actress Oscar... Being voted Tuvalu Football Player of the Year -- a non-notable award -- in an anonymous google docs poll run by the Tuvalu Football Fans twitter account is clearly not an example of receiving a well-known and significant award or honor. JoelleJay (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have no idea why this much energy is being spent to snuff out an encyclopedia-worthy stub about the "most successful Tuvaluan footballer in its history." So it never grows beyond that. Big deal. Should have closed a Keep and we'd all be out of here doing something else unproductive. Carrite (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you now arguing that it doesn't matter that he doesn't meet GNG, we should just keep by virtue of his being the best footballer in a community of 12,000 people? JoelleJay (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a fair argument, when that community of 12,000 people is an independent nation with a national football team that plays other notable national football teams.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Carrite: @Ortizesp:, I agree with both of you. I also feel like the only reason this article was relisted (even though there were 7 keep votes, more than double the 3 delete votes) was because the result wasn't delete. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per request at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Sepetaio_close. Original n/c close for the record.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you to Star Mississippi for relisting! I had this page open with a source assessment table (from this version of the page) I made but hadn't posted yet, which I think could be a helpful recap for people who don't want to read all the other comments.

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Outcasts blog		SPS -- shouldn't be used in article on BLP at all	Nokisi (whose name is misspelled in multiple ways) has a quote and 2 sentences on him	✘ No
team tour Netherlands results/stats		stats archive compiled through (hundreds of) volunteers, no evidence of oversight	stats tables	✘ No
Fenui article on his "Tuvalu football player of the year" win	direct reprint of a press release on facebook		aside from not being independent overall, the article has just 40 words on Sepetaio that aren't direct quotes	✘ No
NFT player stats page			stats page	✘ 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}}.

The other argument towards notability was his winning "Tuvalu football player of the year 2014", however this can be discounted as it was actually an anonymous Google docs poll run by the Tuvalu Football twitter account and has only been awarded once. JoelleJay (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Stats, facebook posts and blogs are not even close to what a BLP requires. Even the award appears to be spurious. Avilich (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JoelleJay and Avilich. BilledMammal (talk) 02:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: all seven keep !votes were based on the one Fenui source "meeting GNG"; now that we know it's completely non-independent and not even SIGCOV, a few participants have since changed their rationale to "he is the most successful Tuvuluan football player in its history", but that is a claim from the press release--itself mostly based on his narrowly winning an anonymous Twitter poll-- not an independent analysis. JoelleJay (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT per JoelleJay and Avilich.4meter4 (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails GNG, as it has only very low quality non-RS mentions supporting questionable statements — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 01:04, 16 June 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.