Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taka N'Gangué

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. I arrive at the same conclusion as the prior close. This is not sources must exist and folks can't find, it's that the likely home for such sourcing has been identified and they've been found but are not of significant depth. If someone wants the history to attempt in draft, let me know. I have not identified a viable ATD as both the olympics and the FAC are options. Star Mississippi 02:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taka N'Gangué

[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)

Zero SIGCOV. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and France. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would suggest people not to vote "Keep" until SIGCOV can be found and demonstrated. Thanks! InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was apparently national French javelin throw champion per this book. Interesting that he was from Senegal but competed for France. There's probably more on this. A search should take place in French and Senegalese newspapers of the time, but unfortunately I doubt that will happen. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This French newspaper archive seems to have some things on him. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what I'm seeing initially seems like listings for the Olympics. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find anything in TWL, JSTOR, NYT, and the AP. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There isn't much using BnF Gallica, [1], brief mentions or basic competition reports. Nothing in Gbooks or Scholar as well. Oaktree b (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this search is specifically for "Taka N'Gangué", which seems to be the subject's less-used name at the time. When I loaded it earlier, there were only a few matches for that name. The search for "Taka Gangué" above, the name used by WP:Tilastopaja, is generating much more results. --Habst (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried both, they basically just list his name among medal winners. There are no stories about him, not even brief paragraphs. Oaktree b (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked again using the link the user provided above, they list his name in a chart with his time score, or just have his name under whatever sport competition, among a list of other competitors. I wouldn't even call them trivial coverages; nothing more than names and a time in a race. Oaktree b (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thank you for nominating the article because it allows us to improve it. i'm currently getting HTTP 500 Internal Server Error on the BnF Gallica website (Proof at the Wayback Machine (archived 2024-01-10)), but earlier when I tried to load the page I saw at least 15 results (plus a second page) for the specific phrase "Taka Gangué", which seems to uniquely identify the subject. I think that over 15 newspaper results demonstrates significant coverage for the subject, and they should be added as soon as the archive is functional again. Even if most (i.e. 8 or 9 of the 15+) are Olympic listings, that still leaves at least 6 or 7 SIGCOV articles, we need to look at all of them ideally with a French language translation available. --Habst (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there another way to access these sources? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also I conducted more searches on French-exclusive websites like France24, and the European archive of newspapers at FENS, and no results at all. That in combination with even more Google searches and my JSTOR databases turning up zero SIGCOV doesn't look like this article would be better. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per InvadingInvader's and Oaktreeb's searches and the fact that we cannot presume anything about coverage existing without first identifying a specific source of SIGCOV. BnF Gallica hits are exclusively passing mentions (often identical press releases) in event results (e.g. "France Taka Gangue, 52 m. 03."[2]), zero SIGCOV.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]

JoelleJay (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay, thank you for your research. I am curious about this policy we cannot presume anything about coverage existing without first identifying a specific source of SIGCOV – I have looked and I cannot find this definitively stated. The WP:SPORTCRIT bullet point #5 is in my opinion contradicted by the rest of the policy, as the phrase Significant coverage is likely to exist appears 37 times on that page while the SPORTCRIT bullet point only appears once. (This is just one of the contradictions on that guideline page – for another, see my talk page thread.) An athlete with over 22 newspaper matches from this time period, who we know was a national champion, deserves a more thorough search for sources. --Habst (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The requirement to find a SPORTCRIT #5 source comes before and supersedes all of the sport-specific criteria (which are not and never have been treated as standalone guidance). "Coverage is likely to exist" does not mean anything if #5 is not met, as that is required for all athlete articles regardless of meeting other criteria. The plurality of those news pieces are exact copies of each other, most certainly derived from press releases, and by wide consensus carry zero predictive capacity for SIGCOV existing. JoelleJay (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay, thank you for responding. The idea that none of the WP:NSPORT sport-specific criteria have ever been treated as standalone guidance is simply not true – this is demonstrated by a fact that a search for "meets WP:NATH" in the Wikipedia namespace demonstrates many comments in deletion discussions only citing NATH without NSPORT #5, and you can see that many are closed as keep by closing admins without those points ever being challenged or contested that their criteria for keeping was not in line with Wikipedia policy. The only thing that could explain the contradiction in SPORTCRIT #5 is if the guidance can be treated as standalone – otherwise, all the Significant coverage is likely to exist statements (which are not qualified by meeting other criteria) would not make sense. --Habst (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sport-specific criteria were/are supposed to predict GNG, which is required to meet NSPORT. Before the RfC that prediction was enough on its own to delay a deletion when editors couldn't immediately find IRS SIGCOV, but it was still necessary that sources demonstrating GNG were identified "eventually". There is no contradiction in NSPORT, but if there was then the consensus from a recent global RfC would definitely override legacy guidance. Significant coverage is likely to exist does not mean that coverage doesn't need to be identified when notability is challenged and it does not mean a biography is exempt from SPORTCRIT #5. JoelleJay (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay, thank you for responding.

There is no contradiction in NSPORT – I think that there are several inconsistencies / contradictions in NSPORT, one of them is noted here. Of course, there is a lot of disagreement about how to fix the inconsistencies as also demonstrated in that link, but they do exist. One other contradiction is that the sport-specific guidelines like WP:NATH say that "coverage is likely to exist" which would satisfy WP:BASIC (which says that coverage must exist, but does not mandate that it is explicitly linked in the article at any given moment), but then that is contradicted by prong 5 of WP:SPORTCRIT which says that it needs to be linked in the article.

I don't think that WP:BASIC is legacy guidance (not saying you were saying that, but that is the policy which I think is met by the subject). Of course, we should always be challenging our coverage to improve it, but I don't think we have done a thorough enough job, as we have only looked at online sources so far while, according to the Internet Archive, most books from the subject's time period are not even digitized.

I think that we need to think, can we assume that significant coverage likely exists? For the subject which is a national champion and Olympian, I would say yes. That's why I think we need to both keep the article and continue to search for the coverage we know exists. --Habst (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your insistence that a rebuttable likelihood of SIGCOV existing somehow satisfies BASIC despite zero items of non-trivial coverage being found is ridiculous. I'd ask that @The Wordsmith please re-close this AfD before any more time is wasted explaining P&Gs to an IDHT user. JoelleJay (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay, I greatly respect your contributions to Wikipedia. WP:BASIC allows for combining sources, which I think we can attempt with the over 22 available newspaper citations we have found. I would be happy to discuss the actual sources or attempts to find them, instead of discussing editor behavior. --Habst (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay: I don't think any discussion here since the relist has moved the needle on the ultimate result, but it doesn't look like we've reached the point of WP:SNOW. I'm going to allow the last day-and-a-half of discussion to play out according to the normal procedure. I'd also request that you strike the second half of that sentence, that sort of language is uncivil and not necessary in this discussion. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per a request on my talkpage, I'm reverting my closure and relisting this AFD to allow additional discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We've combed through the BnF newspaper archive and can only find trivial mentions of this person. That's the best source for Fr newspapers that I've come across in my 20 some years using it for wiki sourcing. Happy to be proven wrong, but I don't find sigcov for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2024 (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.