Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmas Muteti

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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmas Muteti

[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)

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of this marathon runner to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. All I found were routine race reports like 1, 2, and 3. I tried tagging the article and engaging the creator on their talk page; both edits were reverted. JTtheOG (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sport of athletics, and Kenya. JTtheOG (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JTtheOGI've removed the tags as I believe all the athlete articles I created meet WP:N. If you disagree, feel free to delete them. Wieditor25 (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were informed here that NTRACK only tells us that coverage may exist. You proceeded to revert my edits instead of engage in a good-faith discussion. JTtheOG (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JTtheOG I've removed the tags, as I do not agree with your assessment. Wieditor25 (talk) 23:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wieditor25, it is unfortunate that you removed the tagging, as doing so really leaves editors no choice but to take the article to AfD. The tags are there to encourage a more relaxed hunt for sources and page improvement. When a page is tagged with a maintenance tag, there is this guidance: Help:Maintenance template removal in the template header. The first thing to do when your pages get tagged in the future is to take the matter to talk. Most editors do not want to hurry pages through deletion where there is any possibility the page is notable. But again, removing the tags without discussion or improvement pretty much guaranties a trip to AfD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(more of a dispute with NSPORT than disputing your comment) Honestly, coverage "may" exist for any topic at all. It makes no sense to have such criteria as NTRACK if every article one ever creates meeting it gets deleted unless multiple pieces of sigcov are instantly provided because "well, meeting it only means that coverage may exist (just like, for every topic that doesn't meet it, coverage may exist) – but since two Americans who English-Google-searched a Kenyan didn't find SIGCOV, that means it surely doesn't exist anywhere". BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I was a staunch supporter of keeping NSPORT and refining it (Olympians getting deleted will never ever sit right with me), but I really don't see the point of keeping it if it now gets superseded by GNG. All it creates is confusion for new editors. Although to be fair, the creator can presumably also be added to the list of editors who searched for coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. De-personalizing the dispute with the article creator here, the sources exist and I found them. The subject is again also known by a different name: "Cosmas Matolo". See for example him being covered in NTV Kenya here (clip from full TV program): [1], in English prose here [2] and in German prose here: [3]

To the article creator, thank you for your contributions and three things I would advise going forward are to avoid bulleted lists in favor of prose in articles, to use the most common name for a subject (check Tilastopaja) and add redirects or alt names to the lede, and to include a prose-based coverage link when creating new articles. --Habst (talk) 12:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A live~~, 2-minute~~ interview where the subject talks about himself; primary coverage in a WordPress blog; and a blurb by an Olympics committee, all from 2022, are clearly not acceptable sources for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 06:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay, you know I have a lot of respect for your contributions. Could you strike the "2-minute interview where the subject talks about himself" part of your comment, because as mentioned previously the YouTube link is just a clip from a much longer program that includes both interview and non-interview parts about Mueti? There are other clips from the same programming here, here, and here. Also, none of the sources I linked are WordPress.com blogs -- if you just mean that one of them uses WordPress on the back-end, you know that the Vox News and Rolling Stone use WordPress on their backends as well so I don't see how that is relevant at all?

I would be happy to strike my comment and change my !vote if there's any evidence that the sources aren't notability-contributing, but as we've discussed previously these types of sources are usually exactly what we're looking for in AfDs. --Habst (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it is still a primary, live interview where the subject talks about himself or the interviewee asks questions. Not secondary, not independent.
The Fast Running piece, which isn't SIGCOV regardless, is in fact an unattributed press release from Race News Service. JoelleJay (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Interviews can be used to establish notability as we've discussed before; per WP:IV they can be secondary, independent, and reliable. Taking a step back, WP:SPORTCRIT said before your change to it, "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article". I think that the NTV Kenya piece is a good example of that significant coverage piece required; it's all about Muteti from a reliable source, so it's hard to imagine finding something more ideal than that. --Habst (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's "all about Muteti" talking about himself. It does not count toward SPORTCRIT because it is NOT INDEPENDENT OR SECONDARY. This is literally in your link to WP:IV: The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source. [...] Alice Expert talks about herself, her actions, or her ideas: non-independent source. This is getting tendentious. JoelleJay (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And, hold up, are you now seriously suggesting that SPORTCRIT only requires coverage that is significant and reliable...............???? JoelleJay (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews can be notability-contributing (i.e., both independent and secondary) if they're published by a reliable source that provides analysis. If they can't, where in Wikipedia P&G is that stated? Even WP:PRIMARY says that an interview's status as primary depends on context. And I'm mostly relying on WP:N here, not just SPORTCRIT. In general, having significant reliable coverage certainly helps though.

Again, with the "tendentious" labeling, I urge you to treat me with respect as I have always done to you because I respect your contributions. --Habst (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The independent secondary analysis part of an interview can be contributory; the mere presence of such analysis does not render the entire interview secondary and independent. If the secondary analysis in an interview is not by itself SIGCOV then the source as a whole is non-contributory. This should be very clear from the numerous places in WP:PRIMARY stating things like They offer an insider's view of an event. JoelleJay (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay, I am eager to accept that but it isn't anywhere in P&G -- there's no reason to say the interview itself can't also be contributory to GNG. If we accept that only the text outside the interview can be notability-contributing, then... that isn't the interview, and doesn't pertain to WP:IV.

If a reliable independent news source with significant readership decides to interview a subject, that in itself means something as admins have affirmed in previous discussions. You're free to discount individual parts of an interview if you don't think they say anything about notability, but broadly construed interviews can be GNG-contributing depending on context as even WP:PRIMARY says. --Habst (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't understand what the term "interview" encompasses. Not worth wasting my time with this IDHT nonsense. JoelleJay (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please be WP:CIVIL to me as I have always done to you because I appreciate your contributions. --Habst (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We do not have the required IRS SIGCOV. Sources identified above are variously deficient. JoelleJay (talk) 06:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is clearly notable. But Wikipedia’s system often biases against non-Western athletes who receive less mainstream press. Also some of the arguments for deletion seem overly rigid. That said, I found two new significant sources. MyBestRuns covers his Vienna 2022 win in details. And another significant coverage by SWA, which reports his 2018 Bali Marathon win, including some of his quotes. Both sources are independent of the subject and provide significant coverage. Wieditor25 (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All the sources, including the two mentioned above, just tell us about race results. Official results listings are clearly primary. News reporting is primary too. Many of the sources are not independent, and there is nothing approaching SIGCOV here. What is lacking is any secondary source at all that significantly covers the subject such that a page can be written without editor synthesis. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy, thanks. I respect your opinions so can you take a look at e.g. 52:18 of https://ntvkenya.co.ke/sports/dissecting-long-distance-running-sport-on-ep-2/ for in-depth coverage on Muteti that goes beyond just listing race results (not an official result listing), is not primary per WP:PRIMARYNEWS, and significant by virtue of its length? --Habst (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? "He's not competing but..." followed by how he did in 2 or 3 recent races. Primary news reporting on the marathon he is not competing in, and not SIGCOV. We are looking for sources we can write an article from. This is not one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think your definition of "primary news" doesn't agree with WP:NEWSPRIMARY, which says that news coverage is often secondary if it provides analysis of the subject. Open to taking this to another venue to confirm your interpretation. --Habst (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose one of us might have a problem with the definition of primary news. There is no secondary analysis there, just reporting his times. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I updated the article to include the 2018 Singapore Marathon which he came in 4th in a Kenyan sweep but was unable to find SIGCOV so this article may very well be deleted. What I suggest is folks make use of Wikidata because as it currently stands, his entry does not document anything other than he his a Kenyan long-distance runner. S0091 (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for contributing! This entry and others were auto created by Pi bot. Out of curiosity do you really see a clear notability concerns here? Also what percentage of notability criteria do you think he is currently missing: 0%, 50%, 100%,or no such kinds of breakdown? I am getting the impression that some editors and their supporters find it easier to delete articles than to create them. Wieditor25 (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I thought it met the notability criteria, I would have !voted keep but none of the sources meet WP:GNG and obviously I did put in effort to try to find sources. And WP:AGF is a core guideline so don't make snarky comments about other editors. As for Wikidata, yes it was created by a bot but it does offer the opportunity to cover him and Wikidata does show up in Google searches when updated by a human. It is also used across Wikimedia projects, affiliates and user-groups so while consensus could be he does not meet English Wikipedia's criteria, he could meet another project's criteria so gives it a much better chance to be covered in another language. Also, for the record, what a person says about themselves, whether directly quoted or attributed to them (I.e. accord to so-and-so, so-and-so says, etc.), is primary as noted in the WP:OR policy, regardless of where it is published and does not contribute to notability. S0091 (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the input! Agree about WP:AGF, and I assume that applies to everyone involved. Otherwise, there wouldn't be much point in spending time on this discussion. That said, some of the coverage goes beyond basic stats, results, mentions, or quotes, and I don't believe deletion is warranted here. Wieditor25 (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2025 (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.