Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vaisua Liva (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 redirect to Tuvalu national football team. Consensus is clear that coverage isn't at GNG level, but this is a valid ATD. Content is under the redirect if someone wants to selectively merge. Star  Mississippi  14:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Vaisua Liva
AfDs for this article:


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

Fails WP:GNG. All current references in the article are trivial mentions at best. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC) Keep The second reference is very obviously not just a trivial mention, so the rationale for this nomination is invalid. 172.58.110.253 (talk) 07:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football,  and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Regardless this article fails WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The second reference is very obviously a primary source, so the rationale for this nomination is quite valid.   Ravenswing     01:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. No other sources to be found on Google, and the only non-trivial information (from the Tuvalu National Football Association) is effectively just a press release, covering topics relevant to the organization itself (hence not independent or secondary). ev iolite   (talk)  00:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: No independent sourcing of this sub-stub. No evidence of notability.  No suggestion that his level of play meets any extant notability criteria.  And no need of hyperbole-choked hysteria from SPAs who haven't made a single substantive edit to Wikipedia.   Ravenswing      00:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis of WP:GNG - my reasoning is this, Tuvalu in a tiny South Pacific nation and therefore you cannot expect the coverage of a national soccer team player to have the same depth of coverage to that of larger countries. If you intend to head down this path then Wikipedia appears to be discriminatory against minorities. NealeWellington (talk) 08:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Neither the GNG, nor indeed any other notability guideline on Wikipedia, have opt-outs for a putative lack of sources. As has been demonstrated, there are indeed media outlets on Tuvalu.  If those outlets do not provide the substantive coverage to a subject the GNG requires, the answer isn't that we should therefore ignore the GNG.  The answer is that a Wikipedia article cannot be sustained on the subject.   Ravenswing      21:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Response what I am arguing and maybe this is not the place, is that in terms of the application of GNG, this becomes punative to minor nations where there is limited media and from an international perspecitve the euro-centric mainstream media are unlikely to make mention. I would not disagree with you if this article were about, say a New Zealand player, but given it Tuvalu and the limitation on its reporting I think it meets GNG. NealeWellington (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it still doesn't meet the GNG, because the GNG still does not admit to opt-outs. Whether you want the GNG to have such opt-outs is another matter, and you are of course able to go to the appropriate talk page and seek to mobilize consensus to support your POV.  But to claim that this is "punishing" Tuvalu is absurd: you could just as readily claim that the GNG "punishes" Plymouth, Massachusetts -- a town with a land area similar to that of Tuvalu's, and six times the population -- for its star high school soccer players not qualifying for Wikipedia articles (despite media coverage a fair bit more comprehensive), for no better reason than that Plymouth isn't an independent polity.   Ravenswing      01:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep second reference helps him pass GNG IMO, and the federation is obviously independent of the person.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The GNG requires independent sources, as you well know. The second source is the federation itself, which of course is not independent.  (That being said, the first source is a broken link.)   Ravenswing      21:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Genuine question: have you ever actually read a footballer AfD discussion before? JoelleJay (talk) 04:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: In this instance some claims to coverage significant and widespread enough to satisfy gng. Needs further discussion to create a clear consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep : References 1 and 2 = multiple, thus meeting GNG. Worst case, merge to Tuvalu national football team. - 2pou (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The first reference doesn't even work, the second one is arguably not a secondary source. Regardless WP:GNG states there needs to be multiple sources with extensive coverage and two (at best) simply would not meet WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If the second is borderline, then perhaps a merge is better. Actually maybe just redirect.  He already has mentions in place there, and I'm not sure what else would need merging.
 * the first link not working is solved by going to the WayBack Machine (https://web.archive.org). Nearly all Wikipedia links are backed up there, so if you are very active in the AfD area, I highly recommend its use.  It is an excellent tool!  Regarding two (at best) simply would not meet WP:GNG, we will just not see eye to eye there (though your borderline comment has talked me back in this case).  GNG has always been an intentionally low bar to meet, and my personal inclination is anything that has two sources of at least WP:100W (essay, I know, but it's something to measure "significant" with) will meet GNG as two is multiple.  As I said, that's just me, though. All the best, 2pou (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The archive link for the first ref was actually broken too, I had to find the article through other means (link in source assess table). The second ref is definitely not usable for notability purposes; organizations a subject belongs to are never considered independent. JoelleJay (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Tuvalu national football team (updated !vote per above) since he has decent coverage, though appearing to fall short of GNG, and he already has mention on the page. -2pou (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete. Am I missing something here? It is immediately apparent that nothing in the article is remotely SIGCOV in IRS, so what are these secret sources the keep !votes are referring to?

JoelleJay (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, per source assessment table by JoelleJay. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5. BilledMammal (talk) 13:48, 7 June 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.