Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clement Baegeni

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC) Adding a rationale per request. The vast majority of the initial votes were given less weight as they either did not advance a policy based argument or were bare assertions without explanation. There was a detailed source analysis on offered sources that was not effectively refuted and the clear trend of the discussion was to delete after that. Beyond that there was a lengthy discussion on whether material based on interviews are sufficient to base a gng pass but that didn’t come to a clear conclusion that would justify devaluing the large majority of delete votes following the source analysis. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clement Baegeni[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:44, 16 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) 23:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I fear the nominator is getting carried away nominating so many articles and isn't doing due diligence. Anyway, this player is a lot more notable than some, having won the Golden Boot in the Solomon Cup.[1][2][3][4] These are not routine match reports. He's a big deal in his country. St Anselm (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with everything @StAnselm: said, especially about the nominators actions. Besides the sources stAnselm found, I also found more sources which show he is notable in Solomon Islands: 5, 6, and 7. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The player is mentioned frequently in game reports and discussion of the team, but I'm not sure there's enough individual coverage here. In addition, the league he plays in is semi-professional, and even with the one appearance for the national team I'm not sure this crosses WP:GNG. Happy to reconsider if anyone comes up with stronger refs. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 17:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See, that's the thing. If we abandon subject-specific criteria for sportspeople, and only GNG matters, than being professional or semi-professional makes absolutely no difference. St Anselm (talk) 23:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. The little coverage of him seems to be centered on the period of July-August 2017 so even if it was significant, it would fail WP:SUSTAINED. Note that the professional status of the league he plays in and the number of appearances for the national team has no bearing on his notability as an amateur footballer with zero national team appearances can very well be more notable than a professional player with handful of NT appearances if he has more significant coverage. Happy to change my !vote if better sources are found. Alvaldi (talk) 11:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - only two of the sources above are good enough IMHO, but that is sufficient to show notability. Giant Snowman 18:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Something not including enough sources to pass WP:GNG should not be the criteria for proposing deletion, and efforts to improve the article should always be the first priority. It seems clear that this player can pass notability, the article just needs improvement. El Dubs (talk) 04:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pretty hard to conjure SIGCOV out of the sources provided, none of which provide information beyond shallow summaries of his performance at one tournament.

1. Solomon Star: 4 sentences stating the number of goals he had in the Solomon Cup and his likelihood of winning a tournament award, not SIGCOV, ✗ Fail

2. RNZ: two sentences and a quote, far from SIGCOV, ✗ Fail

3. SIBC 1: another 4 sentences on his Solomon Cup performance, not SIGCOV, ✗ Fail

4. SIBC 2: Routine match recap with a few sentences mentioning him, ✗ Fail JoelleJay (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to source analysis by JoelleJay. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. scope_creep^Talk 09:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am interested to see the impact of JoelleJay's source analysis
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per JoelleJay, the sources provided do not even come close to providing the significant coverage required by WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 04:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete owing to a lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources and per JoelleJay. My searches come up with nothing helpful to demonstrate notability. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reference 1 looks a lot better than the impression given above. Reference 5 looks particularly good - I'm not sure why this one wasn't included in the reference analysis (or the next 2, but they are weaker). He does seem to have received a lot of coverage in his country for his Golden Boot win.Nfitz (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because the first reference is trivial, and the fifth one is a primary source because literally everything to be gleaned from it comes directly from him; everything else in that source is trivial. - Aoidh (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a new and incorrect definition of primary source. I don't see how the first reference is trivial. It's not the greatest in the world, but it passes the line. Nfitz (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's neither new, nor incorrect. It is Wikipedia policy: Further examples of primary sources include: ...other opinion pieces, including (depending on context) reviews and interviews... It is primary when the person being interviewed is the subject of the article. When the content of the source comes from the person's mouth, that makes it both a primary source, and a non-independent source as a person cannot be independent of himself. If Wikipedia policy isn't good enough, here's a UMASS Boston guide that very clearly spells it out, and here is another guide that points this out, and here's the American Library Association pointing it out. Both Wikipedia policy and scholarly consensus is in agreement with the fact that interviews of this type are a primary source. When the person being interviewed is also the subject of the article, it makes it a non-independent source, as the person the content is coming from is the subject. Wikipedia:Interviews#Primary or secondary? sums it up well: The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source and is also non-independent material. So this isn't something I'm making up, this is a well-established rule across not only Wikipedia but elsewhere.

As for the reference that you think is not trivial, it says he's leading the golden boot race, scored some goals, and then quotes him directly (again, primary). If you take away the quotes from him, all that is left is trivial. If this is the best we can find for coverage, then there's no notability there because these sources are not sufficient by any metric, and certainly not by WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining a pretty obvious concept. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well they have, User:Sportsfan 1234. But there's a major flaw. There was no interview (and no one has mentioned one until Aoidh started telling us how we shouldn't mention them). Nfitz (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've done a great job explaining why we can't use content from interviews here, but I wouldn't hold out much hope that quoting policies or guidelines or global consensus will produce a change in perspective...[5][6] JoelleJay (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's the relevance though, User:JoelleJay - there was no interview in reference 5, and no one mentioned an interview in the preceding discussion? How is this not a strawman argument? Nfitz (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It did inspire me to write up User:Aoidh/Essays/Interviews as a way to say a lot without having to rewrite it each time, but realistically the changes of someone bothering to read all of that is near zero. - Aoidh (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's smart, I bookmark all the contentious AfDs I encounter, but then always forget which ones included which arguments or even which bookmark folder they're in. And I definitely don't follow my own advice about the utility of explaining things over and over... JoelleJay (talk) 04:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've made a very good argument User:Aoidh, on why we can't use information solely from interviews to support facts - especially those that may be contentious. But that's not what we are doing here; we are trying to establish notability. You've spent a lot of time explaining why an interview is primary. But what interview - I never mentioned an interview? The article included quotes from a press conference! Also what hasn't been considered here is the context. That an article includes quotes from the subject of the article during a press conference doesn't suddenly make the article ineligible as a GNG reference. Even if the piece was exclusively an interview (and it most certainly isn't), that a national newspaper would have been interviewing the subject would indicate notability of the subject. BTW, there's no mention of press conferences in WP:PRIMARY (or NPOV, INDEPENDENT, or GNG; press releases are mentioned in the latter two - but there's a difference between a release, and a post-game press conference where multiple media outlets are asking questions). Nfitz (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have an idea of what an interview is that is seriously inconsistent with both Wikipedia and scholarly consensus or what makes an independent source, especially your misunderstanding of who publishes the interview giving it some degree of independence. That doesn’t matter, the content is still from the subject himself, and is still not independent of himself. However, you say that you never mentioned an interview and then go on to explain that it’s actually a press conference. That’s an interview. Per Oxford, a press conference is "an interview given to journalists by a prominent person in order to make an announcement or answer questions." So anything from a press conference is not independent, and that’s why I brought it up. Aside from the quotes from press conferences, all that’s in those sources is trivial coverage. The sources are insufficient for determining notability because they’re either trivial or wholesale repetitions of press conferences and thus not independent. Based on previous AFDs, I understand that you’re not going to agree with me no matter how clearly the concept of sourcing is spelled out to you, and that’s fine. I’m not responding to change your mind, I’m responding so that someone else commenting sees the quality of those sources for what they are and can assess them accordingly, and to highlight to any closer that your argument is inconsistent with both Wikipedia policy and the scholarly community. I think I’ve made my point as best as I can, so unless you make a good point in your response, there’s no point in me continuing with this discussion. - Aoidh (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
40 words of a quote in a 230 word newspaper article, doesn't turn the article into an interview. You've just spent 265 words without even noting where in Wikipedia there's guidance that 3 quoted sentences is not possible in a GNG source. Nfitz (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that the source itself was an interview. I said that if you take out the quotes from him (which is not independent content), all that's left is trivial. You don't need a hyper-specific guideline to tell you that. - Aoidh (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about the triviality. But more to the point - where is the Wikipedia guidance/policy that says interviews can't be used to establish notability. The essay WP:INTERVIEW notes that a multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability. Nfitz (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A "multitude of interviews" is one thing this article's subject does not have, so thats a moot point. Wikipedia policy has already been linked above, and it's already been explained why interviews with the article's subject do not show notability for that subject; in what world would a person's comments be independent of himself? That makes no sense and as explained above is completely inconsistent with how interviews are treated both on and off of Wikipedia. However, this has been explained and I'm not going to explain further; you disagree with how interviews work and with the definition of triviality, and we'll just have to agree to disagree. - Aoidh (talk) 02:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INTERVIEW is an essay so has little weight here. What the subject says about themselves is primary, per OR's guidance on interviews, and is not independent of the subject, per duh. GNG requires sources be both independent and secondary, therefore we cannot use material quoting what the subject (or anyone else) says (about anything) to establish notability. JoelleJay (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the good sources I'm advocating (1 and 5) are being eliminated because they contain quotes. I've asked for which guidance or policy supports this. I've yet to have a clear answer - other than hand waving. Nfitz (talk) 01:52, 24 August 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.