Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2010 August 30
2010 September 1 >

31 August 2010

  • Samuel Galindo – Unprotected and recreation allowed, but any editor is also free to send it back to AfD should the notability be contested. Note that technically, all the G4s for this content were improper, since it survived AfD once here, even though it was later deleted in a second AfD. – Jclemens ( talk) 05:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Samuel Galindo ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

A Bolivian footballer currently with UD Salamanca. I'm aware that he hasn't played any first team matches yet, but he made an international appearance for Bolivia in a friendly against Mexico back on the 24th of February. If a player makes a first team appearance in either a league or cup match, or an international appearance, then why delete the page? That's why I'm adding this on here. – Michael ( talk) 23:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I see that the article was deleted for failing to meet WP:ATHLETE which states, that a player is notable if they "represented their country in any officially sanctioned senior international competition . . . The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria." The second point is "Players who have appeared . . . in a fully-professional league." I'm assuming that "senior international competition" means competitions like the Olympics and FIFA World Cup. So my question is, was the Bolivia v Mexico match part of the 2010 FIFA World Cup? If not, then he doesn't pass this criteria. The second is playing in a fully-professional league. So is UD Salamanca part of a fully-professional league and has Samuel Galindo played in a league game? — Farix ( t |  c) 00:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Unsalt and allow recreation. The multiple G4 deletions are made on the basis of an AfD over 12 months ago. But it is abundantly clear that the player's career has moved significantly forward since then. Reliable sources say he has played a full international match. [1] He is variously described as a "wonderkid", "starlet" and has significant coverage in reliable sources. He might technically fail NSPORT as an international friendly is not a "sanctioned competition" and he hasn't played a senior club match, but he passes the GNG in spades (just do a news archive search). In any case, isn't it ridiculous that 10 minutes on the field in the English fourth tier gets you over NSPORT, but a full international friendly doesn't? At the least his claim to passing GNG is much better than it was 12 months ago so another AfD is called for rather than salting.-- Mkativerata ( talk) 04:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
Note because the most recent article wasn't fully up to date, I have created a userspace draft here. Far from perfect but sufficient in my view to be on the mainspace.-- Mkativerata ( talk) 05:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Allow recreation. Things have changed since that first AfD, and Mkativerata's draft is easily good enough. Meets WP:NSPORT thanks to the international appearance, and has the coverage to back up the content. Alzarian16 ( talk) 13:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Unsalt, with no prejudice to recreation and if necessary an AfD. Given that the player has made a full international appearance, there is enough to suggest that he might be notable. If he isn't notable, it would still warrant a second AfD, given that the circumstances have significantly changed. -- W F C-- 15:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Unsalt and allow creation - playing in an international match for Bolivia should connote notability, and the G4 was based on information which no longer applies. Jogurney ( talk) 15:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Unsalt and allow recreation Fully agree with the sentiments of Mkativerata that representing your country is considerbly more prominant than a sub appearance in a marginal pro league - as long as it is a sanctioned FIFA international between two senior international sides, which is arguably a competitive match anyway as the result counts towards FIFA rankings, which determines your seedign for fianls tournaments. While there may be little or no mainstream press on the guy in England, he is without doubt covered in his ative Bolivia--ClubOranje T 01:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of fictional magic users ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Also List of fictional parasites, List of fictional characters who can move at superhuman speeds, and List of fictional characters with telekinesis. I'm the administrator that eventually deleted these pages (except for the list of parasites). This discussion is practically already being held on my talk page, so I'm listing it here because the user who asked about listing hasn't done so yet. I initially closed as no consensus, but upon review changed to delete all except for the parasite list. Many of the keep votes rest on arguments that should be avoided. I believe the correct desicion has been made, but considering others disagree, I'm putting this here. — GorillaWarfare talk 00:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse- yup, you got this one right. Reyk YO! 01:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Expand my opinion- IMO the lesser weight accorded to the keep votes was justified. Firstly, many of the users advocating that the parasite one should be kept either had no opinion regrading the others or thought they should be deleted. Ignoring votes along the lines of "It's silly, but where's the harm", or "ITS USEFUL", or "Please give us more time", or incorrect assertions that no deletion rationale was presented, really leaves only DGG's opinion. This one was well argued, but seems to hinge implicitly on the idea that our requirements regarding things like WP:V, WP:OR and WP:N are lessened when we're talking about lists- and that is a questionable assumption at best. On the whole I find the side advocating deletion to have the stronger arguments. Correct close. Reyk YO! 23:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn all No reason these can't be sourced lists, no reason they can't exist as both categories and lists, arguments of "unencyclopedic cross-categorization" are without any policy merit and should have been given zero weight. In other words, there was no good reason to delete any of them, no matter how many people showed up with non-reasons. Jclemens ( talk) 02:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn to NC <EC> got it right the first time. NOT#INFO is all well and good, but the lists were an organizational structure (as most lists are) not a directory or something else. Navigational aids are just fine. As such the !votes for keep were by-and-large policy based. Hobit ( talk) 02:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse closure as written. Keep !votes had little basis in policy, while the delete commentary was on-target and relevant. Closer correctly discards many- not all, but many- as making weak arguments. That the deleted lists were original research went without a real refutation, and were correctly identified as higher arguments, worth more weight. Courcelles 02:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Could you identify those arguments you find to be the strong delete arguments and those you find to be weak keep arguments? I don't see things that way, but I can't tell what arguments you are basing your !vote on. Thanks! Hobit ( talk) 02:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse, while I can't claim that all delete !votes were based in policy, the ones that were were more based in policy and in line with the (LOTS AND LOTS of) previous discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who can fly, whereas the keeps were primarily WP:ATA. Axem Titanium ( talk) 03:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Overturn to "No Consensus" with respect to all except parasites which is a clear keep. While I believe that such lists have no organizational benefit and should be either categories or nothing, I don't see consensus for such as view either reflected in policy or in the AfD. The earlier "list of fictional superpower" list deletes were influenced by the claim that the powers were trivial or undefinable which isn't really the case with the iconic powers in the last debate. Eluchil404 ( talk) 04:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse, though TBH I would've endorsed the original closure as well, they were both within discretion; this was a close call. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse all, along the same lines as Black Kite. Stifle ( talk) 08:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse as just a lot of "I don't like the outcome!" BAWWWing. Keep opinions rested on WP:USEFUL & WP:EFFORT, and were rightly given little weight. Tarc ( talk) 12:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Except for one, none of the keep arguments attempt to address the policy-based problems the lists face. One of the keep arguments didn't so much about why the lists should be kept, but was a rant about AfD as a whole. Most of the delete arguments, on the other hand, try to use policy to back up their positions based on recent outcomes of similar AfDs. — Farix ( t |  c) 14:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn to No Consensus for all but the parasite one that was keep. Some of those who wanted them deleted, said the content was better as categories, preferring them instead of list. Not a good reason to delete something. If you believe the information is valid as a category entry, why not as part of a list? Are there different standards listed somewhere? Do you sincerely doubt any of the characters used magic, in that one list about magic users? You can read a review about the series, or the back of the DVD boxes they come in, which will confirm they can use magic. Seems like just a bunch of list haters to me. A lot of people felt the same way and said keep. No consensus to delete any of this. Dream Focus 15:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn the deletes to keep, which was the actual consensus. The conclusion that they should be categories but not lists is plain contrary to policy, which is that both are normally appropriate ( I think the only reasonable exception is when there are too few items for a list to be helpful). If there is enough evidence for a category, there is enough evidence for a list. A list limited to material in notable anythings is not indiscriminate, nor directory. Totally inappropriate rule-making by the closing admin. The arguments about sourcing was also contrary to fact, as most of the material could be sourced from the appropriate (primary, in this case) sources; an incorrect statement is not a policy based argument. DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Actually, per our verifiability policy, if there are no reliable, independent sources that discuss a subject then we should not have an article on it. That means it is not enough to "source" an article about a fictional element entirely to the work of fiction in which it appears. Reyk YO! 19:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
      • You're applying a narrow view of notability unsupported by consensus. Each list entry does not need to establish notability, and reliable sources for "list of fictional X" don't need to explicitly state "fictional x...", as long as they apply to the topic. Jclemens ( talk) 20:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
        • No, I think my view is supported by consensus- particularly concerning "list of fictional characters with attribute X" type articles. The community has well and truly decided that they are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Consensus has been established that if you can't even write an encyclopedia article about "X in fiction", then dumping a lot of names into a cross-category list is not on. The principle is very clear: is a list an article? Yes. Does policy allow articles to be written from only primary sources? No. Should you then compile a list from only primary sources? No. Reyk YO! 23:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
          • No, individual other discussions don't determine consensus other than locally. The fact that a lot of !voters are confused by the bad current state of some lists does not give you a license to presume that all such lists are to be expunged. Deletion discussions are to be about the encyclopedic potential rather than the current state of articles, so most of the "delete, looks like OR crap" votes are not supported by policy. Jclemens ( talk) 00:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
            • I would think that several discussions regarding many of these lists, held in a central location like AfD and commented on by a large number of neutral observers and all ending in unequivocal delete is about as far from being limited consensus as you can get barring a Wikipedia-wide straw poll. I also think that, since WP:OR you know, kinda is policy, then arguments that make reference to it are also supported by policy. And arguing that anyone who disagrees with you must be "confused" is just poor form. Reyk YO! 00:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
              • While uncorrectable OR violation is a good deletion reason, there is no OR. Saying "OR" when it is itrrelevant is not a policy based argument but just bluster. Anyway, don't the continued arguments here and elsewhere prove there is no stable consensus? I hardly think the people who persistently gtry for the deletion of these articles count as neutral observers. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Could someone explain how NOT#INFO applies here? It's a navigational aid to existing articles. I'm extremely unclear how that can be in violation of NOT#INFO (and I was in the AfD too). Hobit ( talk) 16:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
    • While I can't speak for others, I would generally say that "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" which I believe these lists to be are "indiscriminate collections of information". I also note that the former is not a subheading of the latter in the current layout of WP:NOT, but I suspect that similar thinking influenced many of those who cited WP:NOT#INFO in the debate. This is the disadvantage of arguing with links and acronyms rather than arguments. Even if it's a standard one it can often be clearer to make it explicitly rather than via a linked acronym which often applies on in part or in spirit and not in all the specific bullet points listed at the linked section. Eluchil404 ( talk) 05:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
      • That was my guess. I can't see how a navigational aid can indiscriminate collections of information. I think "loosely related" is a massive stretch here. I think the arguments for deletion in the AfD are just fundamentally flawed. I don't see how flawed arguments can win the day with that close of a !vote count. Hobit ( talk) 00:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • overturn to keep Per DGG. JoshuaZ ( talk) 19:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • overturn to keep or at least no consensus, admin's closing summary clearly misinterprents or misunderstands the rationales - it would be harsh to blame the closing admin because the quality of debate here was very poor; there was an alphabet soup of quoted abbreviations, but their actual application in these cases received minimal discussion because of the varied bunch of articles nominated. There are legitimate arguments for the deletion of lists like these (I'd probably consider them only "marginal keeps") - for instance discussing navigational structure via WP:CLT, or arguing that the inclusion attribute is not a meaningful, important, verifiable, or just poorly defined - but I didn't discussion about this, particularly judging the articles case-by-case on their merits.
The arguments for deletion generally don't seem to apply policy and guidelines to the individual articles - one main thrust was that it was duplicated by a category, but that's not by itself a reason to delete if you read through WP:CLT (which is glaringly relevant, yet not mentioned in the nomination, the "delete" rationales or the closing statement). I'm not sure WP:IINFO was relevant: the lists had clear inclusion criteria, so by definition are not indiscriminate. The closing statement suggests that recreation as categories is possible which presumably rules out WP:IINFO - information that is genuinely indiscriminate wouldn't deserve a category! (And according to WP:CLT there is a valid argument for creating a list article from such a category and annotating and referencing it to make it non-redundant...so if a category is acceptable, there should be a specific reason why a list wouldn't be.) Some of the other "delete" rationales simply showed lack of knowledge about policies and guidelines: the idea that any list which could contain individually non-notable items is deletable unless it includes "List of Notable X" in the title shows a lack of knowledge of WP:NNC (it is appropriate for lists to include entries that don't deserve their own article - actually at WP:CLT that's a benefit of lists over categories - but it's also appropriate for editors to keep a list at maintainable and readable length, if necessary, by including only entries notable enough to possess an article), while arguments like 'wasted opportunities that follow the boring "click on the blue link" format' seen never to have considered WP:CLT or the fact that improvement of the lists by annotation so they are no longer redundant to a category.
What I found very unhelpful was the clear misinterpretation of several "keep" rationales, including in the admin's closure, in order to render them argument to avoid. For instance, under WP:CLT, a system of navigation (category, list or navbox) that is not useful, is a bad system of navigation, and should be removed if it's redundant to one of the others. So arguing for navigational usefulness is not the same mistake as WP:USEFUL, it's just pointing out that it satisfies WP:CLT. Similarly, DGG stated that for individual items on a list about attributes of fictional characters, it generally would be possible to reference the fact they possess that attribute (and hence belong on the list) to their source material. That's a point about whether the articles could be referenced, yet it is represented in the nominator's reply and closing summary as if DGG had made the mistake of arguing for WP:INHERITED notability of the list, and hence his point can be dismissed. Alphabet-soupping WP:ATA at opposing points of view, without considering arguments on their merits, is very harmful to meaningful debate. TheGrappler ( talk) 22:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Most of the "keep" opinions were weak and ignored valid concerns with WP:IINFO WP:NOTDIR and WP:OR. Them From Space 02:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Honestly I just see waves toward those polices, with very little discussion of why they apply. It's now OR to group topics? We do that all the time. You'd be hard pressed to find a list of people here where there is a RS that puts all those people on the same list. NOTDIR also would seem to rule out all lists if you applied it here. Could you explain how it's different than say a list of songs by artist or a list of episodes? And IINFO doesn't even seem to vaguely apply. Could you explain how these policies apply here and where you see that explained in the AfD? Hobit ( talk) 20:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC) reply
      • WP:OR applies because we can't say that something is a fictional magic user (or what have you) unless a reliable source states the case. WP:IINFO states that articles must discuss "the reception and significance of notable works" of fiction; it also contains an admonishment against "excessive listing of statistics". WP:NOTDIR prohibits unencyclopedic cross-categorizations. All of these arguments were brought up at the AfD and were rebutted by vague handwaves such as "this material is appropriate" without anything to back it up (such as sources showing that this wasn't original research and that the topic has enough relevance to be considered encyclopedic). For lists such as these to exist we need to provide sources which show that both 1.the objects in the list belong there and 2. that the list itself is of an encyclopedic topic. Them From Space 06:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC) reply
        • OK, one at a time.
          • WP:OR. We can use a primary source to identify a "magic user". If the book says they use magic, that's enough. Is there a single case on the list where a primary source doesn't back that up? If so, remove it from the list. But all I saw easily met that requirement.
          • The section of WP:IINFO you discuss is for plot-only descriptions of fictional works. I think applying that requirement to a list entry is a massive stretch. If we are going to claim that listing a person as being a magic user (for example) is a "plot description" then we are left with the direction to be "concise". A list entry is about as concise as you could hope for.
          • WP:NOTDIR#6 is probably the best argument to be found, but it's also a stretch. There is plenty of coverage of fictional magic users as a concept. So the list topic is notable and therefore generally encyclopedic. Unless unencyclopedic means WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
        • My point is that the waves toward policy were A) unclear and B) largely wrong. WP:OR clearly is bogus as nothing prevents the use of primary sources. Heck, even without primary sources reviews and the like will identify the characters as "wizards" or the like. The section of WP:IINFO you cite is about writing too-long plot summaries and doesn't apply to simple lists. The WP:NOTDIR would seem to hang on a personal definition of "unencyclopedic". I'm really not seeing any valid arguments for deletion out there. If people had actually argued their points (like you did here, which I think is great) rather than waving at guidelines the keep folks could have countered them (as I have tried to do). But instead there were just waves on both sides to the guidelines and so we get a bunch of fairly worthless !votes to delete and keep. Hobit ( talk) 20:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Bold call but I'm not going to support overturning the deletion of rampant original research. No, primary sources are not enough, it depends too significantly on how the individual editor interprets the primary source. People who write this stuff about fictional universes shouldn't be held to different sourcing standards than the rest of us who have to actually look for sources rather than watch movies and write about them.-- Mkativerata ( talk) 05:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Bah. I agree that fictional sources shouldn't be held to different standards, but you seem to be holding them to higher ones. If we have a reliable source we can use it as a source, primary or otherwise. Could that lead to a disagreement? Sure just like reading any source. We resolve such things through discussion all the time, even on science topics and the like. The thing we avoid with primary sources is synthesis. I'm not sure how that could apply to a list of this nature. Hobit ( talk) 01:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC) reply
      • If I'm writing an article on politics, I can't observe the politics myself and write about it. That's OR. There's no difference between observing a movie, and using my observation to include a character on a list of fictional magic users or whatever. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 10:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse, mostly per Mkativerata. Though I agree that both sides both had some rather poor arguments brought forward, concerns about original research – amounting as a result of a near-blind following of verifiability and nothing else – I think are valid. – MuZemike 06:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - there were essential problems with the lists that were deleted - mainly absence of secondary sources and OR problems. Claritas § 22:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn to no consensus. Sustain parasites as keep. The AfD nomination should have focused on one list and its associated articles, not several lists. The original nomination's two arguments were "inappropriate for Wikipedia" and "has a category already":
  1. Inappropriateness mentions no pillar, policy, guideline, or essay. Not a reason for deletion.
  2. "Has a category" is countermanded with authority by WP:Categories, lists, and navigation templates - paraphrasing: lists and categories both are useful and considered necessary, and are mutually compatible; camps should not seek deletion. Not a reason for deletion.
  3. This leaves the nomination without foundation, except as a fishing expedition for reasons to delete. Fishing is not the purpose of deletion nominations. If I were an admin, I would close as an invalid nomination.
But WP isn't Includipedia, nor is it Deletipedia. The post-closure flip, in my view, should automatically result in a "no consensus" merely on procedural grounds, with sincere respect to the good faith of the closing administrator. The AfD discussion points were not shining examples of the best in such discussion, for two reasons: 1. the fan/editors of the articles and lists are comparatively deers-in-the-headlights of doggedly determined, blooded deletionists, and 2. too many editors on both sides inexcusably failed to read the entirety of linked pillars, policies, guidelines, and essays. What's the matter, TL;DR? As a result, the discussion was nowhere close to reaching consensus - no offered compromises were seriously considered - one example: the notion of "keep for some duration of time," per WP:DEADLINE, was dismissed here as "give US more time", even though the proferring editor obviously had nothing to do with the articles or lists mentioned. The WP:Categories, lists, and navigation templates guideline strongly supports the mutually-inclusive existence of both by-list and by-category navigation of topics, which was the main argument offered for deletion in the AfD nomination. I have no interest in the mentioned lists, having created none, and having edited one only as an example of the kind of improvement which I strongly advocate. I would insist that the lists be improved with descriptions and some internal organization, and linked articles be improved with reliable, verifiable 3rd-party sources. If that improvement doesn't happen, I'll re-up the lists for deletion in WP:DEADLINE days myself. -- Lexein ( talk) 22:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Weakly endorse. In a sort of AfD2 sense, the general argument about list articles suggests that the added utility of a list justifies some leeway when it comes to judging content and inclusion issues. There are some stronger opinions out there (that notability is additive and others), but that is the basic idea. On those merits, I have a lot of trouble seeing a list of fictional magic users as useful enough to overcome the OR/N/NOT issues raised in the deletion debate. On to the discussion itself, we do empower closing admins to take into account some opinions more than others. This is a case where that weighting happened and resulted in delete opinions being given more weight than keep opinions. And weighting those opinions did not require much tea leaf reading. The comments in the AfD were clear and articulate with rationales generally supporting keeping the parasites list (which has some strong potential sourcing) and deleting the rest. I won't do a line by line unless requested, but this close was at the margin of admin discretion and explained clearly. Protonk ( talk) 07:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse All, most of the Keep arguments made were extremely feeble, justifying a delete call, and also per Mkativerata. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 05:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC). reply
    • So if the keep !votes were feeble we delete no matter how strong the delete !votes? I'm assuming that's not what you meant, but I would like to hear what you felt were good arguments on the delete side. I honestly don't see any. Hobit ( talk) 20:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn all deletes. The closer acknowledged, by indicating that parallel categories were appropriate, that the articles did not fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Therefore there is no policy-based reason for deletion (whatever improvement may be appropriate). Whether to maintain lists, categories, or both is therefore purely a matter for editorial discretion, where the closing admin should not have overridden the community's expressed consensus, or lack thereof, without compelling reasons. Without such reasons, there was no consensus to delete any of these articles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 01:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_August_31&oldid=1086104836"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2010 August 30
2010 September 1 >

31 August 2010

  • Samuel Galindo – Unprotected and recreation allowed, but any editor is also free to send it back to AfD should the notability be contested. Note that technically, all the G4s for this content were improper, since it survived AfD once here, even though it was later deleted in a second AfD. – Jclemens ( talk) 05:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Samuel Galindo ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

A Bolivian footballer currently with UD Salamanca. I'm aware that he hasn't played any first team matches yet, but he made an international appearance for Bolivia in a friendly against Mexico back on the 24th of February. If a player makes a first team appearance in either a league or cup match, or an international appearance, then why delete the page? That's why I'm adding this on here. – Michael ( talk) 23:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I see that the article was deleted for failing to meet WP:ATHLETE which states, that a player is notable if they "represented their country in any officially sanctioned senior international competition . . . The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria." The second point is "Players who have appeared . . . in a fully-professional league." I'm assuming that "senior international competition" means competitions like the Olympics and FIFA World Cup. So my question is, was the Bolivia v Mexico match part of the 2010 FIFA World Cup? If not, then he doesn't pass this criteria. The second is playing in a fully-professional league. So is UD Salamanca part of a fully-professional league and has Samuel Galindo played in a league game? — Farix ( t |  c) 00:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Unsalt and allow recreation. The multiple G4 deletions are made on the basis of an AfD over 12 months ago. But it is abundantly clear that the player's career has moved significantly forward since then. Reliable sources say he has played a full international match. [1] He is variously described as a "wonderkid", "starlet" and has significant coverage in reliable sources. He might technically fail NSPORT as an international friendly is not a "sanctioned competition" and he hasn't played a senior club match, but he passes the GNG in spades (just do a news archive search). In any case, isn't it ridiculous that 10 minutes on the field in the English fourth tier gets you over NSPORT, but a full international friendly doesn't? At the least his claim to passing GNG is much better than it was 12 months ago so another AfD is called for rather than salting.-- Mkativerata ( talk) 04:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
Note because the most recent article wasn't fully up to date, I have created a userspace draft here. Far from perfect but sufficient in my view to be on the mainspace.-- Mkativerata ( talk) 05:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Allow recreation. Things have changed since that first AfD, and Mkativerata's draft is easily good enough. Meets WP:NSPORT thanks to the international appearance, and has the coverage to back up the content. Alzarian16 ( talk) 13:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Unsalt, with no prejudice to recreation and if necessary an AfD. Given that the player has made a full international appearance, there is enough to suggest that he might be notable. If he isn't notable, it would still warrant a second AfD, given that the circumstances have significantly changed. -- W F C-- 15:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Unsalt and allow creation - playing in an international match for Bolivia should connote notability, and the G4 was based on information which no longer applies. Jogurney ( talk) 15:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Unsalt and allow recreation Fully agree with the sentiments of Mkativerata that representing your country is considerbly more prominant than a sub appearance in a marginal pro league - as long as it is a sanctioned FIFA international between two senior international sides, which is arguably a competitive match anyway as the result counts towards FIFA rankings, which determines your seedign for fianls tournaments. While there may be little or no mainstream press on the guy in England, he is without doubt covered in his ative Bolivia--ClubOranje T 01:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of fictional magic users ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Also List of fictional parasites, List of fictional characters who can move at superhuman speeds, and List of fictional characters with telekinesis. I'm the administrator that eventually deleted these pages (except for the list of parasites). This discussion is practically already being held on my talk page, so I'm listing it here because the user who asked about listing hasn't done so yet. I initially closed as no consensus, but upon review changed to delete all except for the parasite list. Many of the keep votes rest on arguments that should be avoided. I believe the correct desicion has been made, but considering others disagree, I'm putting this here. — GorillaWarfare talk 00:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse- yup, you got this one right. Reyk YO! 01:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Expand my opinion- IMO the lesser weight accorded to the keep votes was justified. Firstly, many of the users advocating that the parasite one should be kept either had no opinion regrading the others or thought they should be deleted. Ignoring votes along the lines of "It's silly, but where's the harm", or "ITS USEFUL", or "Please give us more time", or incorrect assertions that no deletion rationale was presented, really leaves only DGG's opinion. This one was well argued, but seems to hinge implicitly on the idea that our requirements regarding things like WP:V, WP:OR and WP:N are lessened when we're talking about lists- and that is a questionable assumption at best. On the whole I find the side advocating deletion to have the stronger arguments. Correct close. Reyk YO! 23:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn all No reason these can't be sourced lists, no reason they can't exist as both categories and lists, arguments of "unencyclopedic cross-categorization" are without any policy merit and should have been given zero weight. In other words, there was no good reason to delete any of them, no matter how many people showed up with non-reasons. Jclemens ( talk) 02:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn to NC <EC> got it right the first time. NOT#INFO is all well and good, but the lists were an organizational structure (as most lists are) not a directory or something else. Navigational aids are just fine. As such the !votes for keep were by-and-large policy based. Hobit ( talk) 02:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse closure as written. Keep !votes had little basis in policy, while the delete commentary was on-target and relevant. Closer correctly discards many- not all, but many- as making weak arguments. That the deleted lists were original research went without a real refutation, and were correctly identified as higher arguments, worth more weight. Courcelles 02:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Could you identify those arguments you find to be the strong delete arguments and those you find to be weak keep arguments? I don't see things that way, but I can't tell what arguments you are basing your !vote on. Thanks! Hobit ( talk) 02:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse, while I can't claim that all delete !votes were based in policy, the ones that were were more based in policy and in line with the (LOTS AND LOTS of) previous discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who can fly, whereas the keeps were primarily WP:ATA. Axem Titanium ( talk) 03:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Overturn to "No Consensus" with respect to all except parasites which is a clear keep. While I believe that such lists have no organizational benefit and should be either categories or nothing, I don't see consensus for such as view either reflected in policy or in the AfD. The earlier "list of fictional superpower" list deletes were influenced by the claim that the powers were trivial or undefinable which isn't really the case with the iconic powers in the last debate. Eluchil404 ( talk) 04:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse, though TBH I would've endorsed the original closure as well, they were both within discretion; this was a close call. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse all, along the same lines as Black Kite. Stifle ( talk) 08:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse as just a lot of "I don't like the outcome!" BAWWWing. Keep opinions rested on WP:USEFUL & WP:EFFORT, and were rightly given little weight. Tarc ( talk) 12:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Except for one, none of the keep arguments attempt to address the policy-based problems the lists face. One of the keep arguments didn't so much about why the lists should be kept, but was a rant about AfD as a whole. Most of the delete arguments, on the other hand, try to use policy to back up their positions based on recent outcomes of similar AfDs. — Farix ( t |  c) 14:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn to No Consensus for all but the parasite one that was keep. Some of those who wanted them deleted, said the content was better as categories, preferring them instead of list. Not a good reason to delete something. If you believe the information is valid as a category entry, why not as part of a list? Are there different standards listed somewhere? Do you sincerely doubt any of the characters used magic, in that one list about magic users? You can read a review about the series, or the back of the DVD boxes they come in, which will confirm they can use magic. Seems like just a bunch of list haters to me. A lot of people felt the same way and said keep. No consensus to delete any of this. Dream Focus 15:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn the deletes to keep, which was the actual consensus. The conclusion that they should be categories but not lists is plain contrary to policy, which is that both are normally appropriate ( I think the only reasonable exception is when there are too few items for a list to be helpful). If there is enough evidence for a category, there is enough evidence for a list. A list limited to material in notable anythings is not indiscriminate, nor directory. Totally inappropriate rule-making by the closing admin. The arguments about sourcing was also contrary to fact, as most of the material could be sourced from the appropriate (primary, in this case) sources; an incorrect statement is not a policy based argument. DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Actually, per our verifiability policy, if there are no reliable, independent sources that discuss a subject then we should not have an article on it. That means it is not enough to "source" an article about a fictional element entirely to the work of fiction in which it appears. Reyk YO! 19:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
      • You're applying a narrow view of notability unsupported by consensus. Each list entry does not need to establish notability, and reliable sources for "list of fictional X" don't need to explicitly state "fictional x...", as long as they apply to the topic. Jclemens ( talk) 20:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
        • No, I think my view is supported by consensus- particularly concerning "list of fictional characters with attribute X" type articles. The community has well and truly decided that they are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Consensus has been established that if you can't even write an encyclopedia article about "X in fiction", then dumping a lot of names into a cross-category list is not on. The principle is very clear: is a list an article? Yes. Does policy allow articles to be written from only primary sources? No. Should you then compile a list from only primary sources? No. Reyk YO! 23:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
          • No, individual other discussions don't determine consensus other than locally. The fact that a lot of !voters are confused by the bad current state of some lists does not give you a license to presume that all such lists are to be expunged. Deletion discussions are to be about the encyclopedic potential rather than the current state of articles, so most of the "delete, looks like OR crap" votes are not supported by policy. Jclemens ( talk) 00:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
            • I would think that several discussions regarding many of these lists, held in a central location like AfD and commented on by a large number of neutral observers and all ending in unequivocal delete is about as far from being limited consensus as you can get barring a Wikipedia-wide straw poll. I also think that, since WP:OR you know, kinda is policy, then arguments that make reference to it are also supported by policy. And arguing that anyone who disagrees with you must be "confused" is just poor form. Reyk YO! 00:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
              • While uncorrectable OR violation is a good deletion reason, there is no OR. Saying "OR" when it is itrrelevant is not a policy based argument but just bluster. Anyway, don't the continued arguments here and elsewhere prove there is no stable consensus? I hardly think the people who persistently gtry for the deletion of these articles count as neutral observers. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Could someone explain how NOT#INFO applies here? It's a navigational aid to existing articles. I'm extremely unclear how that can be in violation of NOT#INFO (and I was in the AfD too). Hobit ( talk) 16:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
    • While I can't speak for others, I would generally say that "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" which I believe these lists to be are "indiscriminate collections of information". I also note that the former is not a subheading of the latter in the current layout of WP:NOT, but I suspect that similar thinking influenced many of those who cited WP:NOT#INFO in the debate. This is the disadvantage of arguing with links and acronyms rather than arguments. Even if it's a standard one it can often be clearer to make it explicitly rather than via a linked acronym which often applies on in part or in spirit and not in all the specific bullet points listed at the linked section. Eluchil404 ( talk) 05:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
      • That was my guess. I can't see how a navigational aid can indiscriminate collections of information. I think "loosely related" is a massive stretch here. I think the arguments for deletion in the AfD are just fundamentally flawed. I don't see how flawed arguments can win the day with that close of a !vote count. Hobit ( talk) 00:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • overturn to keep Per DGG. JoshuaZ ( talk) 19:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • overturn to keep or at least no consensus, admin's closing summary clearly misinterprents or misunderstands the rationales - it would be harsh to blame the closing admin because the quality of debate here was very poor; there was an alphabet soup of quoted abbreviations, but their actual application in these cases received minimal discussion because of the varied bunch of articles nominated. There are legitimate arguments for the deletion of lists like these (I'd probably consider them only "marginal keeps") - for instance discussing navigational structure via WP:CLT, or arguing that the inclusion attribute is not a meaningful, important, verifiable, or just poorly defined - but I didn't discussion about this, particularly judging the articles case-by-case on their merits.
The arguments for deletion generally don't seem to apply policy and guidelines to the individual articles - one main thrust was that it was duplicated by a category, but that's not by itself a reason to delete if you read through WP:CLT (which is glaringly relevant, yet not mentioned in the nomination, the "delete" rationales or the closing statement). I'm not sure WP:IINFO was relevant: the lists had clear inclusion criteria, so by definition are not indiscriminate. The closing statement suggests that recreation as categories is possible which presumably rules out WP:IINFO - information that is genuinely indiscriminate wouldn't deserve a category! (And according to WP:CLT there is a valid argument for creating a list article from such a category and annotating and referencing it to make it non-redundant...so if a category is acceptable, there should be a specific reason why a list wouldn't be.) Some of the other "delete" rationales simply showed lack of knowledge about policies and guidelines: the idea that any list which could contain individually non-notable items is deletable unless it includes "List of Notable X" in the title shows a lack of knowledge of WP:NNC (it is appropriate for lists to include entries that don't deserve their own article - actually at WP:CLT that's a benefit of lists over categories - but it's also appropriate for editors to keep a list at maintainable and readable length, if necessary, by including only entries notable enough to possess an article), while arguments like 'wasted opportunities that follow the boring "click on the blue link" format' seen never to have considered WP:CLT or the fact that improvement of the lists by annotation so they are no longer redundant to a category.
What I found very unhelpful was the clear misinterpretation of several "keep" rationales, including in the admin's closure, in order to render them argument to avoid. For instance, under WP:CLT, a system of navigation (category, list or navbox) that is not useful, is a bad system of navigation, and should be removed if it's redundant to one of the others. So arguing for navigational usefulness is not the same mistake as WP:USEFUL, it's just pointing out that it satisfies WP:CLT. Similarly, DGG stated that for individual items on a list about attributes of fictional characters, it generally would be possible to reference the fact they possess that attribute (and hence belong on the list) to their source material. That's a point about whether the articles could be referenced, yet it is represented in the nominator's reply and closing summary as if DGG had made the mistake of arguing for WP:INHERITED notability of the list, and hence his point can be dismissed. Alphabet-soupping WP:ATA at opposing points of view, without considering arguments on their merits, is very harmful to meaningful debate. TheGrappler ( talk) 22:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Most of the "keep" opinions were weak and ignored valid concerns with WP:IINFO WP:NOTDIR and WP:OR. Them From Space 02:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Honestly I just see waves toward those polices, with very little discussion of why they apply. It's now OR to group topics? We do that all the time. You'd be hard pressed to find a list of people here where there is a RS that puts all those people on the same list. NOTDIR also would seem to rule out all lists if you applied it here. Could you explain how it's different than say a list of songs by artist or a list of episodes? And IINFO doesn't even seem to vaguely apply. Could you explain how these policies apply here and where you see that explained in the AfD? Hobit ( talk) 20:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC) reply
      • WP:OR applies because we can't say that something is a fictional magic user (or what have you) unless a reliable source states the case. WP:IINFO states that articles must discuss "the reception and significance of notable works" of fiction; it also contains an admonishment against "excessive listing of statistics". WP:NOTDIR prohibits unencyclopedic cross-categorizations. All of these arguments were brought up at the AfD and were rebutted by vague handwaves such as "this material is appropriate" without anything to back it up (such as sources showing that this wasn't original research and that the topic has enough relevance to be considered encyclopedic). For lists such as these to exist we need to provide sources which show that both 1.the objects in the list belong there and 2. that the list itself is of an encyclopedic topic. Them From Space 06:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC) reply
        • OK, one at a time.
          • WP:OR. We can use a primary source to identify a "magic user". If the book says they use magic, that's enough. Is there a single case on the list where a primary source doesn't back that up? If so, remove it from the list. But all I saw easily met that requirement.
          • The section of WP:IINFO you discuss is for plot-only descriptions of fictional works. I think applying that requirement to a list entry is a massive stretch. If we are going to claim that listing a person as being a magic user (for example) is a "plot description" then we are left with the direction to be "concise". A list entry is about as concise as you could hope for.
          • WP:NOTDIR#6 is probably the best argument to be found, but it's also a stretch. There is plenty of coverage of fictional magic users as a concept. So the list topic is notable and therefore generally encyclopedic. Unless unencyclopedic means WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
        • My point is that the waves toward policy were A) unclear and B) largely wrong. WP:OR clearly is bogus as nothing prevents the use of primary sources. Heck, even without primary sources reviews and the like will identify the characters as "wizards" or the like. The section of WP:IINFO you cite is about writing too-long plot summaries and doesn't apply to simple lists. The WP:NOTDIR would seem to hang on a personal definition of "unencyclopedic". I'm really not seeing any valid arguments for deletion out there. If people had actually argued their points (like you did here, which I think is great) rather than waving at guidelines the keep folks could have countered them (as I have tried to do). But instead there were just waves on both sides to the guidelines and so we get a bunch of fairly worthless !votes to delete and keep. Hobit ( talk) 20:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Bold call but I'm not going to support overturning the deletion of rampant original research. No, primary sources are not enough, it depends too significantly on how the individual editor interprets the primary source. People who write this stuff about fictional universes shouldn't be held to different sourcing standards than the rest of us who have to actually look for sources rather than watch movies and write about them.-- Mkativerata ( talk) 05:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Bah. I agree that fictional sources shouldn't be held to different standards, but you seem to be holding them to higher ones. If we have a reliable source we can use it as a source, primary or otherwise. Could that lead to a disagreement? Sure just like reading any source. We resolve such things through discussion all the time, even on science topics and the like. The thing we avoid with primary sources is synthesis. I'm not sure how that could apply to a list of this nature. Hobit ( talk) 01:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC) reply
      • If I'm writing an article on politics, I can't observe the politics myself and write about it. That's OR. There's no difference between observing a movie, and using my observation to include a character on a list of fictional magic users or whatever. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 10:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse, mostly per Mkativerata. Though I agree that both sides both had some rather poor arguments brought forward, concerns about original research – amounting as a result of a near-blind following of verifiability and nothing else – I think are valid. – MuZemike 06:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - there were essential problems with the lists that were deleted - mainly absence of secondary sources and OR problems. Claritas § 22:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn to no consensus. Sustain parasites as keep. The AfD nomination should have focused on one list and its associated articles, not several lists. The original nomination's two arguments were "inappropriate for Wikipedia" and "has a category already":
  1. Inappropriateness mentions no pillar, policy, guideline, or essay. Not a reason for deletion.
  2. "Has a category" is countermanded with authority by WP:Categories, lists, and navigation templates - paraphrasing: lists and categories both are useful and considered necessary, and are mutually compatible; camps should not seek deletion. Not a reason for deletion.
  3. This leaves the nomination without foundation, except as a fishing expedition for reasons to delete. Fishing is not the purpose of deletion nominations. If I were an admin, I would close as an invalid nomination.
But WP isn't Includipedia, nor is it Deletipedia. The post-closure flip, in my view, should automatically result in a "no consensus" merely on procedural grounds, with sincere respect to the good faith of the closing administrator. The AfD discussion points were not shining examples of the best in such discussion, for two reasons: 1. the fan/editors of the articles and lists are comparatively deers-in-the-headlights of doggedly determined, blooded deletionists, and 2. too many editors on both sides inexcusably failed to read the entirety of linked pillars, policies, guidelines, and essays. What's the matter, TL;DR? As a result, the discussion was nowhere close to reaching consensus - no offered compromises were seriously considered - one example: the notion of "keep for some duration of time," per WP:DEADLINE, was dismissed here as "give US more time", even though the proferring editor obviously had nothing to do with the articles or lists mentioned. The WP:Categories, lists, and navigation templates guideline strongly supports the mutually-inclusive existence of both by-list and by-category navigation of topics, which was the main argument offered for deletion in the AfD nomination. I have no interest in the mentioned lists, having created none, and having edited one only as an example of the kind of improvement which I strongly advocate. I would insist that the lists be improved with descriptions and some internal organization, and linked articles be improved with reliable, verifiable 3rd-party sources. If that improvement doesn't happen, I'll re-up the lists for deletion in WP:DEADLINE days myself. -- Lexein ( talk) 22:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Weakly endorse. In a sort of AfD2 sense, the general argument about list articles suggests that the added utility of a list justifies some leeway when it comes to judging content and inclusion issues. There are some stronger opinions out there (that notability is additive and others), but that is the basic idea. On those merits, I have a lot of trouble seeing a list of fictional magic users as useful enough to overcome the OR/N/NOT issues raised in the deletion debate. On to the discussion itself, we do empower closing admins to take into account some opinions more than others. This is a case where that weighting happened and resulted in delete opinions being given more weight than keep opinions. And weighting those opinions did not require much tea leaf reading. The comments in the AfD were clear and articulate with rationales generally supporting keeping the parasites list (which has some strong potential sourcing) and deleting the rest. I won't do a line by line unless requested, but this close was at the margin of admin discretion and explained clearly. Protonk ( talk) 07:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse All, most of the Keep arguments made were extremely feeble, justifying a delete call, and also per Mkativerata. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 05:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC). reply
    • So if the keep !votes were feeble we delete no matter how strong the delete !votes? I'm assuming that's not what you meant, but I would like to hear what you felt were good arguments on the delete side. I honestly don't see any. Hobit ( talk) 20:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn all deletes. The closer acknowledged, by indicating that parallel categories were appropriate, that the articles did not fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Therefore there is no policy-based reason for deletion (whatever improvement may be appropriate). Whether to maintain lists, categories, or both is therefore purely a matter for editorial discretion, where the closing admin should not have overridden the community's expressed consensus, or lack thereof, without compelling reasons. Without such reasons, there was no consensus to delete any of these articles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 01:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_August_31&oldid=1086104836"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE