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 delete. Originally closed as No Consensus, overturned to Delete at Deletion review -- RoySmith (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lemusa Alatasi[edit]

Lemusa Alatasi (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)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per the old WP:NFOOTY, this was viable for creation when it was created a year ago. Now the RfC change was passed with the condition that there won't be mass deletions based on it, which feels is what Sportsfan 1234 is pushing with the tens of AfDs I've seen they've created in recent period. --SuperJew (talk) 06:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you point out where that condition was placed? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @SuperJew:, I agree with everything you said, especially about the mass deletions by the nominator. I also feel like people shouldn't have to create articles that satisfy guidelines knowing they could be deleted a few years later because of some random guideline change. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 01:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Nah I had enough of a nightmare trying to trudge through that clusterf* as it was happening and have no desire to revisit it -- SuperJew (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. There is no grandfather rule. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 13:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia has no grandfather clause. We judge articles on current inclusion criteria, not on the inclusion criteria that existed when the article was made. Thus we should delete this article because it does not meet current inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the presumption of notability is based on a guideline that no longer exists. Google News has no hits. DDG has trivial coverage in FFAS and EMTV. ProQuest has nothing. Sources cited in the article currently are only trivial mentions or basic stats pages. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep given that the driving force behind this purge is a change in notability policy, articles should be tagged and given reasonable time for improvement rather than simply deleted. --IdiotSavant (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If people need to work on the article, they can do so from user or draft space. I don't see the point in keeping an article just on the off chance that they might be notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Article needs work. Yes, American Samoa may seem a bit small in the grand scheme of things But Atalasi has played a significant part in football there. I can see this but various sites I have looked at. Karl Twist (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  ere are the sources? This article is a clear fail of WP:GNG.h Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Like others, I've searched for GNG-qualifying sources and haven't found any that discuss Alatasi "directly and in detail", nor is there any indication that others exist. There's global consensus that significant coverage is needed in these circumstances, so since I'm not seeing any strong policy/guideline-based arguments to keep, he isn't notable, as best I can tell. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - are any of the 'keep' commenters going to provide any SIGCOV? This was nominated on the grounds of failing WP:GNG but I can't see any guideline-based arguments against deletion nor attempts to actually counter the assertion that Alatasi fails GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply to above - No wonder it looks like this. What a scantily referenced page. It needs a lot more work, that's for sure!. Looking at Pacific Island news which I have done a bit of study on, I know that many Pacific Islands newspapers would have profiles and articles on people like Lemusa Atalasi. I knew this before I created the Pacific Islands Monthly page back in 2016. I've learnt a bit more since then. I'm quite certain Mr. Atalasi is notable. We have to remember too that many of the Pacific Islands news papers are not uploaded online. Looking around at the work that he has done. I believe he is notable. Again, this Wikipedia page for Lemusa Atalasi needs work. Karl Twist (talk) 06:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notable person in his country. Simione001 (talk) 03:51, 26 July 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.