Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ati Kepo

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 no consensus‎. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ati Kepo[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)

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. This is despite scoring five international goals, albeit for the Papua New Guinea national football team. JTtheOG (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. JTtheOG (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of material at the PNG Post-Courier or The National; all someone needs to do is extract a few good articles.--IdiotSavant (talk) 10:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Source breakdown: 1 mention, 1 mention, 1 mention, 2 mentions, 1 mention, 2 mentions, 2 mentions. No SIGCOV. The closest thing to it would be the two sources already in the article. JTtheOG (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per IdiotSavant. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreed with JTtheOG that the above sources are nowhere close to SIGCOV. Athletes are required to have a source of SIGCOV cited in their articles, that has not been established here. JoelleJay (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this player seems to have a slightly higher profile than many deleted here. But he's still not cutting it as far as the notability requirements. I agree the sources we have are too brief. If anyone finds anything more substantial, ping me and I'll consider changing my !vote. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant coverage that passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources constitute significant coverage? MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NYC Guru (talk) 07:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BIO says If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, may help in this case? —siro χ o 09:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, substantially per siroxo and IdiotSavant. Policy-based rationale follows.
First, the applicable rules: WP:NBIO provides that People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject, and that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. In turn, WP:SIGCOV states that significant coverage addresses the topic sufficiently directly and in sufficient detail that no original research is needed to extract the content. It also clarifies that the article subject does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
Second, the relevant sources: Among sources cited here and in the article, we have some articles for which Ati Kepo makes up 1/4 to 1/2 of the article topic, and which contain substantial biographical information about him in particular: [1], [2], [3]. As the biographical content can be extracted without any hint of original research, these are squarely within both the letter and the spirit of SIGCOV. We also have some articles in which Kepo makes up 1/4-1/2 of the article topic but which do not contain much biographical information: e.g. [4], [5]. We also have at least two RS articles in which Ati Kepo is the main topic, but with little biographical information: [6], [7]. These latter sources also appear to be plainly within the letter of WP:SIGCOV, although perhaps not within its spirit (since they furnish little in the way of article material). (These latter articles also go to show that Kepo is "notable" in the colloquial sense of "important", which is not relevant under policy but for some reason has often proven relevant to AFD outcomes.)
Conclusion: Even applying the rules with the greatest rigidity (which is rarely required), this article still qualifies under NBIO because the article subject has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. -- Visviva (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Viva admin. Okoslavia (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be notable in PNG at least. Dont see a big issue here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:49, 11 July 2023 (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.