Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Percival Vete


 * 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, passes NPOL. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 03:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Harry Percival Vete

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources to establish that WP:NBIO is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Doesn't he pass WP:NPOL as a former member of the Tongan legislature? Cbl62 (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello Cbl62. WP:NBIO states that members of legislative bodies are "likely to be notable", however in this case it seems that this isn't supported by in-depth coverage. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to "Saints of Tonga" of Tonga, so can't evaluate its depth of coverage on Vete. I'd note, though, that the presumption flowing from passing NPOL should count for something. And we have some decent coverage from American newspapers during his brief time in the USA. If we had access to Tongan newspapers, we'd almost certainly have enough to push this one over the GNG bar. Cbl62 (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Religion,  and Oceania.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I think it should be deleted. There is no statement about historical significance apart from his being elected to the Tongan legislative assembly.  What did he accomplish there?  At the very least, the last paragraph should be deleted as unimportant. 66.44.12.164 (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Keep - clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN as a member of a national legislature. There's also clear sourcing on him from the Deseret News article, plus assorted other minor mentions to confirm details of his life. The problem here is lack of access to 1940 - 1980's Tongan media, not that he's not notable.--IdiotSavant (talk) 02:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep It is verifiable that the subject was a member of the Legislative Assembly of Tonga. This provides a WP:NPOL pass. But, the larger point is that meeting the criteria of an SNG usually suggests that the individual has certain "real-world" notability or ""worthy of notice" or "note" — that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"" The community determined that all elected officials serving in a national or state/provincial legislature is "worthy of notice" and should warrant their own article. Verifying the subject served in a notable office is sufficient for keeping the article since there will be sources of election results, votes, legislative speeches that can be used to flush out an article. --Enos733 (talk) 04:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets WP:NPOL, as added sources make clear. Ingratis (talk) 08:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: WP:NPOL functionally operates in lieu of WP:GNG, in contrast to most other SNGs; this is also the case for WP:NPROF and (usually) WP:GEOLAND#1. As he is sourced as being a Tongan MP, he thus passes NPOL and is considered notable for our purposes. Curbon7 (talk) 08:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Strictly speaking, NPOL doesn't replace GNG — the real issue is that since NPOL-passing politicians always have sufficient coverage to pass GNG, but Wikipedians haven't always actually done the work needed to ensure that our article about them actually uses all of their best sourcing, NPOL really exists as a "don't waste your time arguing the non-notability of figures whose articles are improvable" proviso. I do see the problem at the time of nomination, but the article has been improved. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * NPOL-passing politicians always have sufficient coverage to pass GNG I have some members of Congolese provincial governments from the 1960s I'd like to introduce you to in that case. In theory, this is what NPOL is supposed to mean, but I strongly doubt that this is actually the case. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Its particularly problematic for politicians from small countries with limited media sources which do not have historical archives online (which is most of the Pacific). But that's why we have NPOL. IdiotSavant (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2022 (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.