Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tautau Moga

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 keep. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tautau Moga

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:RLN notability guidelines as he has not played an international or in a first grade (NRL) match Mattlore (talk) 10:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Hasn't played a first grade game, so fails WP:RLN and doesn't have significant independent coverage (I don't consider NRL.com to be independent) so fails WP:GNG. Looks like he might debut round one, though, so should be recreated if that happens. Jenks24 (talk) 13:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reading some of the comments below, I guess a redirect until he makes his debut would be fine as well. Jenks24 (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Changing to keep. Since my vote on 2 February, Moga has received significant coverage (specifically this article). Jenks24 (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sydney Roosters. Completely agree with Mattlore and Jenks24, save that I think we should redirect rather than delete: (1) it's a viable search term; and (2) he may well become notable very soon and it's much easier to reverse a redirect than to undelete or recreate an article. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could we look at incubating until he becomes notable? Mattlore (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think we should keep it because as many reports mention, this kid is going to be an NRL star. I’m not seeking to be a fortune-teller, but he’s going to play in the NRL this year. Therefore, I don’t see the point of deleting it when it is going to have to be re-added soon anyway.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps we could incubate or userfy until he makes his debut? Mattlore (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes. Either option is agreeable in my opinion.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm normally pretty quick to suggest deleting these, but it appears this fella will probably be making his first-grade debut in about a month. Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources exist in newspapers about him. [1][2][3][4] Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney newspapers. One minute google search found these. --LauraHale (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Another mention in todays Tele. [5] Doctorhawkes (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if he hasn't played an international or NRL match the coverage is so substantial that he's notable in his own right. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2012 (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.