Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clement Baegeni

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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.

16:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC) Adding a rationale per request. The vast majority of the initial votes were given less weight as they either did not advance a policy based argument or were bare assertions without explanation. There was a detailed source analysis on offered sources that was not effectively refuted and the clear trend of the discussion was to delete after that. Beyond that there was a lengthy discussion on whether material based on interviews are sufficient to base a gng pass but that didn’t come to a clear conclusion that would justify devaluing the large majority of delete votes following the source analysis.
Spartaz Humbug! 06:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Clement Baegeni

Clement Baegeni (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:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:44, 16 July 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) 23:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I fear the nominator is getting carried away nominating so many articles and isn't doing due diligence. Anyway, this player is a lot more notable than some, having won the Golden Boot in the Solomon Cup.[1][2][3][4] These are not routine match reports. He's a big deal in his country. StAnselm (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with everything @StAnselm: said, especially about the nominators actions. Besides the sources stAnselm found, I also found more sources which show he is notable in Solomon Islands: 5, 6, and 7. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The player is mentioned frequently in game reports and discussion of the team, but I'm not sure there's enough individual coverage here. In addition, the league he plays in is semi-professional, and even with the one appearance for the national team I'm not sure this crosses
    WP:GNG. Happy to reconsider if anyone comes up with stronger refs. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 17:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
See, that's the thing. If we abandon subject-specific criteria for sportspeople, and only GNG matters, than being professional or semi-professional makes absolutely no difference. StAnselm (talk) 23:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pretty hard to conjure SIGCOV out of the sources provided, none of which provide information beyond shallow summaries of his performance at one tournament.
1. Solomon Star: 4 sentences stating the number of goals he had in the Solomon Cup and his likelihood of winning a tournament award, not SIGCOV,  Fail
2. RNZ: two sentences and a quote, far from SIGCOV,  Fail
3. SIBC 1: another 4 sentences on his Solomon Cup performance, not SIGCOV,  Fail
4. SIBC 2: Routine match recap with a few sentences mentioning him,  Fail JoelleJay (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am interested to see the impact of JoelleJay's source analysis
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because the first reference is trivial, and the fifth one is a primary source because literally everything to be gleaned from it comes directly from him; everything else in that source is trivial. - Aoidh (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a new and incorrect definition of primary source. I don't see how the first reference is trivial. It's not the greatest in the world, but it passes the line. Nfitz (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's neither new, nor incorrect. It is
Wikipedia policy: Further examples of primary sources include: ...other opinion pieces, including (depending on context) reviews and interviews... It is primary when the person being interviewed is the subject of the article. When the content of the source comes from the person's mouth, that makes it both a primary source, and a non-independent source as a person cannot be independent of himself. If Wikipedia policy isn't good enough, here's a UMASS Boston guide that very clearly spells it out, and here is another guide that points this out, and here's the American Library Association pointing it out. Both Wikipedia policy and scholarly consensus is in agreement with the fact that interviews of this type are a primary source. When the person being interviewed is also the subject of the article, it makes it a non-independent source, as the person the content is coming from is the subject. Wikipedia:Interviews#Primary or secondary?
sums it up well: The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source and is also non-independent material. So this isn't something I'm making up, this is a well-established rule across not only Wikipedia but elsewhere.
As for the reference that you think is not trivial, it says he's leading the golden boot race, scored some goals, and then quotes him directly (again, primary). If you take away the quotes from him, all that is left is trivial. If this is the best we can find for coverage, then there's no notability there because these sources are not sufficient by any metric, and certainly not by
WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you for explaining a pretty obvious concept. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well they have, User:Sportsfan 1234. But there's a major flaw. There was no interview (and no one has mentioned one until Aoidh started telling us how we shouldn't mention them). Nfitz (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You've done a great job explaining why we can't use content from interviews here, but I wouldn't hold out much hope that quoting policies or guidelines or global consensus will produce a change in perspective...[5][6] JoelleJay (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's the relevance though, User:JoelleJay - there was no interview in reference 5, and no one mentioned an interview in the preceding discussion? How is this not a strawman argument? Nfitz (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It did inspire me to write up User:Aoidh/Essays/Interviews as a way to say a lot without having to rewrite it each time, but realistically the changes of someone bothering to read all of that is near zero. - Aoidh (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's smart, I bookmark all the contentious AfDs I encounter, but then always forget which ones included which arguments or even which bookmark folder they're in. And I definitely don't follow my own advice about the utility of explaining things over and over... JoelleJay (talk) 04:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • You've made a very good argument
    WP:PRIMARY (or NPOV, INDEPENDENT, or GNG; press releases are mentioned in the latter two - but there's a difference between a release, and a post-game press conference where multiple media outlets are asking questions). Nfitz (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I disagree about the triviality. But more to the point - where is the Wikipedia guidance/policy that says interviews can't be used to establish notability. The essay
    WP:INTERVIEW notes that a multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability. Nfitz (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
WP:INTERVIEW is an essay so has little weight here. What the subject says about themselves is primary, per OR's guidance on interviews, and is not independent of the subject, per duh. GNG requires sources be both independent and secondary, therefore we cannot use material quoting what the subject (or anyone else) says (about anything) to establish notability. JoelleJay (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both of the good sources I'm advocating (1 and 5) are being eliminated because they contain quotes. I've asked for which guidance or policy supports this. I've yet to have a clear answer - other than hand waving. Nfitz (talk) 01:52, 24 August 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.