- 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 redirect to List of Tuvalu international footballers. Clear consensus not to retain a standalone; redirect to list seems a reasonable WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Toua Tueni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure how redirecting an article that is not notable to a list of more non-notable names makes any sense. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:R#K5:
Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways.
If someone looks up Toua Tueni, they can find out the country he played for, his position, when he played, etc. A redirect has no notability requirements, only the target of the redirect does. -2pou (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No independent sourcing of this sub-stub. No evidence of notability. No suggestion that his level of play meets any extant notability criteria. The best way to follow WP:ATD is to supply adequate sourcing for this player. Was that attempted? Ravenswing 00:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Suppose it was attempted, and the attempt was unfruitful. Redirecting is still another valid ATD, as it gets a searcher to a topic that still conveys information about the topic searched for. -2pou (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The attempt being unfruitful isn't an excuse to say "Oh well, the guidelines don't matter, we should have an article on the subject all the same, because reasons." The only possible response is that an article on the subject cannot be sustained. Ravenswing 21:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- No one is saying the guidelines don't matter. If the topic is not notable enough to sustain an article, then it can be removed.
How it is removed is an entirely different question. Is the topic worthy of a redirect? There is no guideline saying that a redirect must satisfy WP:GNG. If you're suggesting that a new redirect created at this page name should be deleted at RfD, it should probably fall under something in WP:RDELETE, and I don't see any of those that apply here. -2pou (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject is not only not notable enough to sustain an article, it's ridiculous that this is even under discussion. There is a SINGLE source here, a database entry telling us just about nothing, regarding a single match that was played outside of FIFA's aegis. There is zero value to this entry, other than perhaps satisfying some sense of knee-jerk ultra inclusionism. Ravenswing 21:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I am so confused... I don't see a single person advocating to keep the article... -2pou (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as suggested by BeanieFan11 per WP:ATD-R for a valid alternative to deletion. It is worth WP:PRESERVEing the work in case sources from this small nation are uncovered. I see no tendentious history that would warrant outright deletion over a WP:SOFTDELETE. -2pou (talk) 21:10, 26 May 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.