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




 * 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)

Okilani Tinilau
AfDs for this article:


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

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).

Avilich (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Avilich (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment passes WP:NATH #3 with his Oceania Championships medals. StAnselm (talk) 04:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NATH #3 is "Have won an individual gold medal at the IAAF World Junior Championships, or Youth World Championships." There's no record of the subject having done that. WaggersTALK  08:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this was supposed to say WP:NATH #2: "Finished top 3 in any other major senior-level international competition (this includes prestigious small field meets, e.g., IAAF Diamond League/IAAF Golden League meets, less-prestigious large-scale meets, e.g., Asian Games, and any IAAF Gold Label Road Race that is not explicitly mentioned above)". Two bronze medals at the Oceania Championships (Regional Division East) means the subject meets that criterion. <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  08:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: passes with WP:NSPORTS per WP:NATH #3 with the Buun magazine article (which I added to the article) providing significant coverage. Note that a previous nomination of this article closed just last week: Articles for deletion/Okilani Tinilau. StAnselm (talk) 04:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Do you know what really gets on my nerves? When an article on a sportsperson is kept at AFD, and an unhappy deletionist goes and AFDs again it less than a week later! There should be a rule against immediately renominating articles with outcomes you dislike. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * to be fair, it was no consensus. While a week is short, a n/c is not a clear cut keep. Star   Mississippi  01:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, per WP:GNG and the source assessment table above. Editors who believe repeat nominations are disruptive should push closers to better consider WP:LOCALCON, as that will remove the need for them. BilledMammal (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting how when an article has no SIGCOV, you say "Delete - fails SPORTCRIT" – but when it meets SPORTCRIT but only has one piece of SIGCOV, you say "Delete - fails GNG". What is the purpose of SPORTCRIT if meeting it has no effect at all? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Per the original discussion, to make it harder to engage in mass creation, and to make it easier to delete articles without any SIGCOV - meeting it is explicitly stated as not indicating notability. BilledMammal (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And NSPORTS explicitly says "failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted". StAnselm (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - per last AFD comments; no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * so what do you think about the Buun article? StAnselm (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not in-depth enough, and on its own is insufficient anyway. GiantSnowman 17:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - clearly passes WP:NATH criteria 2. Also, rather annoyed at the tactic of nominating and nominating until you get the desired result.--IdiotSavant (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, I think in cases like this, where we have one piece of SIGCOV, a person meeting NSPORTS, a possible offline second source (Olympic Islands, see last AFD), and where potential sources are very difficult to find (are there any online Tuvaluan newspapers?), we should be able to keep the article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no online newspapers in Tuvalu, just weekly printed ones. Arorae (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per source assessment table. The single possible SIGCOV source is not sufficient to meet NSPORTS or GNG. If editors believe that sufficient sourcing can be found eventually, then perhaps Draftify; our policies and guidelines (particularly SPORTBASIC #5) do not allow article to be kept in mainspace if notability is not demonstrated. –dlthewave ☎ 03:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No, of course we are allowed to keep these articles: as mentioned above, WP:NSPORT says "failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted". And WP:IAR says we are allowed to do anything (subject to certain restrictions, like BLP). Secondly, 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)
 * Per WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS, guidelines such as 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)
 * 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)


 * Weak Keep Looks like meeting WP:NSPORTS. Look at his matches. BBSTOP (talk) 05:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What about his matches? –dlthewave ☎ 05:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * "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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * "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)
 * Where are you seeing the list of entrants? StAnselm (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Here Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. StAnselm (talk) 03:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Delete I've seen other articles nuked for only having one good source: what's different here? 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * They may be deleted, it doesn't mean they must be deleted. 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)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Comr Melody Idoghor  (talk)  08:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Olympian, flagbearer, further the Oceania Area Championships in Athletics are a major senior-level competition, recognised by World Athletics as an Olympic qualifying event and he is with no doubt the sportsperson more popular in Tuvalu.--Arorae (talk) 06:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * None of which are valid reasons to keep an article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 03:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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)'''
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Delete. Fails GNG and BASIC due to absence of the required significant coverage in secondary sources; even the claim of significant coverage in one source is debatable. Passing mentions in primary sources do not contribute to establishing notability, and that is pretty much all there is here. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep A number of things wrong with this table. Firstly, the bndestem article contains over 350 words, and is devoted to only two players, one of whom is Tinilau.  This is definitely not "passing coverage".  Secondly, for the last source (lc.nl), it's not just what's in the article, it's the entire "iPad and newspaper" episode mentioned in the article (which is certainly more than significant).  Finally, this nomination comes just a week after a previous nomination on this same athlete, making this a clear violation of rule B5 in WP:AFD and Renominating for deletion. 24.28.96.202 (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The Leeuwarder Courant article is about Foppe de Haan, who very briefly managed Tuvalu, and contains a passing anecdote about our subject here ditching football for athletics, so is not significant coverage. wjematherplease leave a message... 07:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. The source assessment table above is pretty accurate, although I'm confused why the independence wasn't discussed for any of the entries. All of the OFC content is non-independent and doesn't even need to be assessed for the other parameters. I also think the single source designated SIGCOV isn't quite that caliber and certainly not enough for GNG. The Bundestem article is an editorial, which is not considered acceptable for BLPs. JoelleJay (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per StAnselm --Kasper2006 (talk) 04:04, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is an invalid voting reason. Tinilau does not meet WP:NSPORTS per WP:NATH #3. Proven above. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You may not have realised that your argument got rebutted above. StAnselm (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Keep: 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)
 * That has been debunked. Tinilau DOES NOT pass NATH. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 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). <span id="HouseBlaster:1661219143019:WikipediaFTTCLNArticles_for_deletion/Okilani_Tinilau_(2nd_nomination)" class="FTTCmt">HouseBlastertalk 01:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Keep. Firstly WP:N states a subject is notable if it meets WP:GNG or a subject specific guideline such as WP:NSPORT. WP:NATH is the athletics-specific part of WP:NSPORT. WP:NATH states that a subject is deemed notable if it meets any of the criteria listed. Criterion 2 is "Finished top 3 in any other major senior-level international competition (this includes prestigious small field meets...)" and it goes on to give some examples of "prestigious small field meets" including the Asian Games. The Oceana Games is the equivalent of the Asian games for the continent of Oceana. The Oceana Games are split into two regional divisions (East and West) with medals awarded in both. The subject finished in the top three of the East Oceana Games twice and therefore meets the notability criteria. <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  08:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Subjects that meet NATH are not "deemed notable" or even "presumed notable"; following WP:NSPORTS2022, all NSPORT sub-SNGs offer only an indication that "significant coverage is likely to exist". When that is challenged at AFD, it needs to be demonstrated that significant coverage actually exists. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NSPORTS2022 says there was no consensus on proposal 1 (which is the proposal you are claiming is a rule). So that's not an actual requirement. IdiotSavant (talk) 12:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You are misinterpreting what I wrote. See proposal 5, which resulted in an addition to SPORTCRIT, and applies to all of NSPORT; and proposal 8, regarding the removal of presumed notability to avoid misuse of the SNG at AFD. Many of the comments here illustrate the problem that the changes were intended to address. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The speedy re-nomination of this article and the behavior within this discussion feels like WP:BLUDGEONING. The focus on removing virtually all articles about athletes from Oceania feels like WP:BIAS. The countries within Oceania are small, remote, mostly offline and not well understood by the bulk of English Wikipedia editors. The sources we have are at best a very week keep, so for the first time in my WP history, I'm invoking WP:IAR. This is possibly one of Oceania's and almost certainly Tuvalu's best known athletes. It feels very, very wrong to delete it at this time. Jacona (talk) 13:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Searching for "オキラニ ティニラウ" (his Japanese name) I find many more results in addition to what we already have, e.g., , . Because he was already close to meeting GNG before based on consensus (and I think IAR is a valid point here) I think it's a clear keep to me. EternalNomad (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * These are just more passing mentions. Is there any significant coverage, because with just one qualifying source with very limited coverage, this really isn't that close to meeting GNG at all. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:33, 23 August 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.