- 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. Geschichte ( talk) 21:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Fakaʻosi Pifeleti
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Fakaʻosi Pifeleti ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for sides so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 16:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Seems to me to meet WP:GNG, as at least one source is “substantial coverage”, viz. an article about Pifeleti and not a brief mention. Moonraker ( talk) 07:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Don't believe any of the sources on the page or that I can find are 'substantial coverage', that are independent of the source/tournament. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 10:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Moonraker, as has been discussed here can you show which of the sources in the article provide enough significant coverage for it to pass WP:GNG or if there are other sources that you believe enough to allow it to pass WP:GNG can you provide them. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 15:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete does not meet the rugby criteria. The coverage does not meet GNG which requires substantial coverage in sources that are indepdent of the subject. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - not sure what significant coverage is being referred to above. All I can see are passing mentions like this and this Spiderone 17:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:GNG pretty clearly, none of the coverage is significant, reliable, or not independent. SportingFlyer T· C 14:29, 23 November 2020 (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.