Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atantaake Tooma


 * 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 no consensus. AFD is not, in any event, the place to quibble over notability guidelines nor to run "test cases" about them. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Atantaake Tooma

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The player fails under criteria three in the player notability tab as Kiribati is not a member of FIFA. I would also like to nominate these articles too as they also fail the same criteria.
 * HawkAussie (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * HawkAussie (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. No FIFA matches per NFT. GiantSnowman 07:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - based on below they appear to meet NFOOTBALL, and international players are given more leeway than club players on GNG, but I still have concerns. GiantSnowman 19:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi GiantSnowman, see this edit on my talk page, where we discussed the eligibility of Tuvaluan players, Fenix down made the following point:


 * As you did not dispute this point, I figured that all editions of the Pacific/South Pacific games counted towards WP:NFOOTY. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:NFOOTY does not require FIFA membership for international caps to confer notability – it states that a player must had made an appearance in a competitive senior international match at confederation level regardless of whether or not the teams are members of FIFA. Matches in the football tournament at the Pacific Games are senior confederation-level matches (with the exception of the 2015 edition, which was contested only by U23 teams), and have served as World Cup qualifying tournament for the confederation in the past. Pinging GiantSnowman for reconsideration. Number   5  7  18:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep As above, WP:NFOOTY does not need international games to be FIFA approved, so long as it is an 'A' team from both nations. If these pages are removed, then all of these pages will need to be removed too. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all We have allowed way to much inclusion if games do not even have to be FIFA approved to count. This is getting absurd.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:NFOOTY and International Players in any sport are not deleted also as per Davidlofgren1996 and Number 57.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all. John Pack Lambert expresses my sentiments well. When was the wikipedia community as a whole apprised of this further attempt by a subgroup of football editors to lower the inclusion bar for biographies of living people? And, as for these articles: Where are the sources? Where is teh significant coverage? Who is going to keep these biographies updated? In reliance on what news sources? How will we know when these players retire? How will we know when they die? When keep !voters stop for a moment to consider those questions, the correctness of John Pack Lambert's use of the word "absurd" becomes obvious. Sorry, but no sources = no article. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep As noted above. An AfD isn't the appropriate place to discuss your disagreements with Wikipedia's current guidelines. R96Skinner (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is indeed alarming how many participants at this AfD seem to disagree with fundamental Wikipedia policies like ensuring we have properly sourced biographies of living persons.—Mkativerata (talk) 11:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * IMO, BLPs whose only sources are primary (e.g., statistics databases) should be eligible for WP:BLPPROD. – Levivich 17:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete all – let's assume they meet NFOOTY; the presumption of notability is rebutted by the total lack of sourcing. When I searched for " " -wikipedia -transfermarkt, none of these players yield more than three pages of results–most just one or two pages. I could not find a single secondary source on any of them–just statistics and directories. None of the articles seems to have a secondary source listed as a reference, either; they're all sourced to primary sources like statistics websites. All that these articles say is that these players played on the national team in 2003. It's the only information available about these players. That information can be listed at Kiribati national football team. With no secondary sources, we cannot have stand-alone articles, especially BLPs. These articles run counter to the consensus documented in our core policies like WP:NOR (Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources ...), WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and WP:BLP (Avoid misuse of primary sources) as well as our guidelines WP:N and WP:RS. If someone finds sourcing, these articles can always be recreated. – Levivich 17:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep all Each player has played multiple times for their country. This is different from ″one sub appearance in an FPL″ type AFD's. Dougal18 (talk) 09:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Really WP:NFOOTY isn't clear on that as stated 7.2 on the FIFA guidelines. All tier 1 International Matches must be authorised by FIFA and the Confederation(s) and Members concerned. A summary of the authorisations required for tier 1 International Matches is set forth in Appendix A. That key word being "and" as just because it's part of the OFC does not mean it authorized by FIFA and with the Kiribati team not part of FIFA as they would go probably under tier 2 not tier 1. HawkAussie (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep all - All this talk of tier 1 matches is completely irrelevant, NFOOTY is quite clear that players are presumed notable when they have played a full international organised at confederation level. The 2003 Pacific games football tournament was an official OFC tournament as RSSSF clearly states. These are all players who have played at the highest possible level for their country and, as has been stated above, this is far removed from the "one fpl appearance" type players. This sort of player is exactly what nfooty was created for, where players may not be covered in online media but probably have received coverage in offline I-Kiribati media. I'd like to hear from thos who voted delete what efforts editors went to to establish a lack of coverage in offline sources. Fenix down (talk) 05:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If we’re playing onus-shifting, I’d like to hear from the keep !voters how they’re going to ensure these BLPs are kept up to date and accurate.—Mkativerata (talk) 05:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What onus shifting? Google isn't the only source of information. If delete voters have only used google to reach their conclusions then that weakens their arguments by definition. It's perfectly reasonable to ask people what other checks they have done. Your point is ultimately irrelevant; please see WP:OUTDATED and the fact that these are players who's career is now finished at international level. Fenix down (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Before I book my plane tickets to Kiribati, can you give me an example of a footballer who is notable but has no Google hits? – Levivich 17:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sydney Thompson (footballer), Peter Turbitt, to name two. There are quite a few pages created by reputable Wiki members, actually. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * With those examples, they was backed up by a book source, that same area of getting that source might not be able to be applied to these players that have been nominated. HawkAussie (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @David, Yeah but both of those are sourced to Bradford City: A Complete Record 1903-1988, and that's the only non-statistics source. If it's a "complete" record, inclusion doesn't really suggest notability. Are there any players who played in the 21st century who are the subject of multiple offline GNG sourcing, but no online GNG sourcing? I doubt it because the internet is ubiquitous. Anyway, if such sources are found, let the article be written then. How do we comply with WP:V if we have no sources? – Levivich 01:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Please even players who have played just one domestic cricket match and have just one stat site asa source and retired hence permanent GNG failures were kept Articles for deletion/C. Sandanayake and Articles for deletion/CE Holkar as noted by the closers .We need a RFC for this.No point of raising here.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.