Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okilani Tinilau (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Aside from the fact that a substantial majority of discussion participants !voted to keep (leaving no possible interpretation of the outcome as a consensus to delete), there is certainly no question or assertion that this article is a hoax, or indeed that the subject of this article is not, in fact, one of the leading athletes in the history of his country. As a project, we must have some sensitivity to the fact that there will be subjects from minority groups in smaller countries for whom sources in English will be sparse or less accessible than for subjects in large English-speaking countries. I would encourage editors researching this article to look for transcripts or recordings of Tuvaluan radio broadcasts on the subject.
BD2412 T 18:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okilani Tinilau

Okilani Tinilau (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)

Doesn't meet GNG and

WP:SPORTCRIT
even with the sources presented last AfD, per source assess table below (does not include the database sources).


Source assessment table:
Source
Independent?
Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward
GNG
?
"14th IAAF World Championships - Biographical entry list". IAAF. No "Tuvaluan record holder at 100m ... ht Oly 100 2008; ht WCH 100 2009; pr WCH 100 2011" No
"New Caledonia defeated Tuvalu 8-0 in their Group A match at the XIV Pacific Games". Oceania Football Confederation. No team roster + event listing of a single match No
"Vanuatu have beaten Tuvalu 5–1 in their men's Group A match at Riviere Salée in Nouméa at the XIV Pacific Games". Oceania Football Confederation. No team roster + event listing of a single match No
"Solomon Islands have beaten Tuvalu in their men's Group A match at Rivière Salée in Nouméa at the XIV Pacific Games". Oceania Football Confederation. No team roster + event listing of a single match No
"Tuvalu Olympic Athletes Finish Competition Proudly", tuvaluislands.com ? probably not, site down No "ran in the men's 100 metres race on August 15. The 20 year-old's time was 11.48 in the first round Heat 10." No
https://web.archive.org/web/20220719041558/https://www.bndestem.nl/overig/deel-2-takataka-en-tinilau~ab4446fd No passing coverage of his career, not enough to constitute sigcov No
http://www.buunvenlo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/buun-2013-compressed.pdf ? Yes ? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20220719041604/https://lc.nl/archief/Nooit-een-saai-moment-met-Tuvalu-spelers-20724196.html No passing mention 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}}.
Avilich (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
NSPORTS requires multiple examples of sigcov, and at best there is only one, assuming that source is reliable.
Avilich (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Pretty sure it's reliable - no reason why it wouldn't be. Is NSPORTS any different from GNG, in your opinion? It only makes sense if significant achievement + one source with significant coverage in the article is used as a proxy for GNG. StAnselm (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NSPORT says "Meeting this requirement [1 source] alone does not indicate notability" and "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline", which I take to mean a requirement for multiple sources.
Avilich (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
No, of course we are allowed to keep these articles: as mentioned above,
WP:SPORTCRIT #5 in fact requires (only) one reliable source with significant coverage present in the article, which is what we have here. So even if it's not sufficient to meet GNG, it is sufficient to meet NSPORT, which is all we need. StAnselm (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Per
WP:GNG can be suspended by IAR, but only in exceptional circumstances. What is your IAR argument, and what is it about these circumstances - that otherwise appear like a standard sports AfD - that makes them exceptional? BilledMammal (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I wasn't making an IAR argument - I was responding to the claim that we're not allowed to keep certain articles. But now that you mention it, there is a fairly strong IAR case here, in that the subject is (perhaps borderline) notable in two areas: football and athletics. That's what puts him above run-of-the-mill sportspeople. (The other IAR argument would be a systemic bias one, that we should make sure small countries are represented, and if we were to keep any sportsperson from Tuvalu, this would be the one.) But as I said, I think he passes NSPORTS in athletics. StAnselm (talk) 06:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Looks like meeting
    WP:NSPORTS. Look at his matches. BBSTOP (talk) 05:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
What about his matches? –dlthewave 05:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As IdiotSavant said last time: "won bronze at the Oceania Athletics Championships, and so clearly meets WP:NATH criteria 1 or 2, depending on where you think the OAC ranks. If you think it needs additional references, please tag it appropriately rather than jumping straight to AfD." To which I would add that his notability is obvious within Tuvalu: an Olympian, national sprint record holder, and member of the country's national football team. He's arguably the most notable sportsperson from Tuvalu, all sports taken together. I find it... odd that when the nomination for deletion failed, the article was immediately nominated for deletion again. Aridd (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"won bronze", "Olympian, national sprint record holder, and member of the country's national football team" are not valid criteria of notability.
Avilich (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
No, but "Finished top 3 in any other major senior-level international competition" is. The Oceania Area Championships in Athletics are a major senior-level competition, recognised by the IAAF as an Olympic qualifying event. He clearly and unambiguously meets the notability criteria as an athlete, independently of any football-stuff--IdiotSavant (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That merely tells us that significant coverage is likely to exist, it doesn't establish notability. SIGCOV sources still need to be provided and at least one needs to be in the article. –dlthewave 02:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Individual events in these championships must contain either several heats or extended fields" is a criteria and both medals were won in events with less than eight entrants, ie no heats/qualification. Therefore Tinilau fails WP:NATH as well. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you seeing the list of entrants? StAnselm (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here [1] Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. StAnselm (talk) 03:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "several heats or extended fields" you cited only applies to "Finished top 8 in a competition at the highest level..." (rule 1), and is irrelevant for those who finish in the top 3 (rule 2). 24.28.96.202 (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They may be deleted, it doesn't mean they must be deleted. Wikipedia:Notability says, "For articles on subjects that are clearly not notable, then deletion is usually the most appropriate response" (emphasis original). StAnselm (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Two cents. There are thousands and thousands of Olympics stubs created in bygone days with absolutely zero SIGCOV. E.g., Labib Hasso, Somsak Thong-ar-ram, Habib Sayed, Dulamyn Amarsanaa, Sompop Svadanandana, Jeremías Stokes, Talita Baqlah. Rather than devoting hours of collective effort re-litigating close cases that actually have SIGCOV and were resolved as "Keep" just one week earlier, why not focus our attention on cleaning up the clearly non-notable Olympians who have no SIGCOV at all? Of course, everyone's entitled to spend their time as they wish, but wouldn't the latter accomplish a lot more good for the encyclopedia? Cbl62 (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make that four cents. It's not best behavior to re-nominate an article so soon, even if the result was no consensus. Jacona (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The previous discussion was pathetic, one person gave some sources which were barely discussed and the rest of the keep voters just threw around vaguewaves or illegitimate arguments -- now the sources are actually being discussed, as they should've been the first time.
Avilich (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@Sportsfan 1234: You may not have realised that your argument got rebutted above. StAnselm (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That claimed rebuttal was strongly rebutted several times. Passing NATH (presumably #2, not #3; if indeed he does - which is debatable given the regional nature of the Oceania championships at the time) is insufficient, since when the presumption that significant coverage is likely to exist is challenged, GNG must be shown to be met. That means multiple sources, not just a solitary weak source (and it's questionable whether that even contains the necessary coverage). All we have here is pieced together from bare results and statistics, because that is pretty much all that is in the sources. wjematherplease leave a message... 07:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Tuvalu is a small country. Really small. Nevertheless, he is a significant sports figure as far as Tuvalu is concerned. Sure, the coverage may not be what we would like to see, but there is enough there to verify his accomplishments and existence. There are sources even if they are not particularly strong. Ultimately, weighing everything, I !vote Keep. This article is a net positive to WP (isn't that the test for admins?). If nothing else, I am IAR-ing because in an area (sports bios) where there are a lot of one-line articles with 10 pageviews all time for someone who appeared in one MLB game in 1995, I think this is the kind of article which we should be keeping, as opposed to deleting just for deletion's sake (or because the black-letter law says we can). Is this a diatribe? Yes, but I stand behind it. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 18:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Aridd has shown above that Tinilau does in fact pass NATH, which means that SIGCOV likely exists. This article has been at AfD for a long time, and SIGCOV has not emerged. However, we do have this source, which does in fact count towards GNG. We also have a note above about Olympic Islands, an unconfirmed SIGCOV offline source. There is a strong possibility that this subject meets GNG from those two sources, which for someone from Tuvalu of all places would be enough for GNG. Combined with the NATH presumption of SIGCOV, I find it likely that this subject is in fact notable. NATH tells us that there is likely SIGCOV of this person, which is reinforced by the online source and potential for offline sources. Giving due consideration to his small home country of Tuvalu, I find it extremely likely that he is notable. HouseBlastertalk 00:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC) edited 07:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That has been debunked. Tinilau DOES NOT pass NATH. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe you are referring to your comment ("Individual events in these championships must contain either several heats or extended fields" is a criteria and both medals were won in events with less than eight entrants, ie no heats/qualification. Therefore Tinilau fails WP:NATH as well.") above. That qualifier is only present for NATH#1, but is not present for NATH#2, which is the criterion he meets. NATH#2 explicitly mentions that "prestigious small field meets" qualify for meeting that criterion (emphasis mine). HouseBlastertalk 01:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NATH presumption of SIGCOV there's no such thing, in fact a recent RfC has done away with presumptions.
Avilich (talk) 04:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
That was poor phrasing on my part. I have struck and replaced it with wording that is closer to what I was trying to get at. HouseBlastertalk 07:20, 23 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.