Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nemani Roqara

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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nemani Roqara

[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 is currently unreferenced. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:33, 25 May 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) 21:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Unreferenced, fails WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Also article is not unreferenced, it has a Soccerway link. Giant Snowman 10:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The two sources [1] and [2] seem to be pretty significant. I added the former reference (I think this is the correct translation but a native speaker would definitely help!). The 2016 link seems to be about his participation in a tournament. EternalNomad (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Sources found seem to do it. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 23:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @User:Iseult and @Ortizesp both sources listed by @EternalNomad do not meet GNG. The first mentions the subject once, in a passing manner, ie trivial mention. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first source has twelve paragraphs, numbers 3-8 of which are about the subject and his coaching career and comments about the match he coached in. The second describes a final in which he scored a brace and appears in the headline; the match ended 3-1, and the fact that he won the final and editors thought fit to put him in the headline is indication of significance. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 00:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, that's a blatant misrepresentation of the coverage: the first source is 12 paragraphs of single sentences, almost all of which are direct quotes or "Roqara said this". That fails SIGCOV handily. The second source is from the same newspaper, failing independent, and doesn't contain more than two passing mentions of Roqara, failing SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first source certainly mentions him more than once with several paragraphs describing his activities and his statements as coach. He is referred to as “Mr. Roqara”, “Koj Roqara”, etc. EternalNomad (talk) 03:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources in the article and above, and from my own search in Bislama, are exclusively interviews and passing mentions. A reporter relaying statements from the subject about an event he's running is not direct detailed coverage of the subject, and that's all the first source is. JoelleJay (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 3 sources are not enough and my google search did not bring up much proper articles. Lovewiki106 (talk) 07:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, 3 sources is more than enough if they are SIGCOV and independent. In this case, there are two sources by different authors 5 years apart which I believe contain nontrivial coverage, meeting WP:GNG. EternalNomad (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But the second one is trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. In order to meet our notability requirements the sources must address the subject "directly and in-depth", and the sources must be simultaneously "independent". The only sources which address the subject "directly and in-depth" are interviews. Interviews are not considered independent sources. All of the non-interview sources are trivial passing mentions. Therefore, the article does not meet the minimum sourcing requirements to pass GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:54, 15 June 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.