Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2012 May 16
2012 May 18 >

17 May 2012

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Arthur Custance ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Seems eminently notable. (Page was prodded.) Rich  Farmbrough, 17:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC). reply

    • Expired prods can be restored on request, and I have done so. I have no comment on actual notability, but it can go to afd if anyone has doubts about it. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Sealand national football team – Original AfD endorsed, recreation allowed While there is marginally more sentiment for allowing recreation than not, there's also a clear consensus that there was nothing wrong with the previous AfD. Any editor may nominate the article for AfD normally, but I am restoring the history underneath the new article per the request and lack of articulated reason to not do so. – Jclemens ( talk) 06:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sealand national football team ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

History was not preserved as a result of the 2007 AfD; the old article was deleted and replaced with a redirect. Request recreation of pre-2007 history for the following reasons:

  1. The AfD should have been closed as no consensus rather than redirect; there were roughly the same number of keep votes as delete or redirect ones, and the keep ones had more of a basis in policy
  2. Some of the arguments used in deletion five years ago wouldn't wash in an AfD today; plus consensus can change, and certainly enough time has passed to revisit it
  3. Additional references to assert the team's notability have come to light since the AfD, due to the team resuming playing international fixtures since the 2007 AfD (See refs 64 and 65 in the Sealand article) p b p 16:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Agree, Restore the history, but endorse the redirect. There was consensus for the redirect, and redirect is still suitable because there is room at the target to say what little there is to say about the national football team. If a section on the national football team becomes large, it may be spun out as a separate article. Undeleting the history is reasonable, assuming that there was useful content there. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Having a football side redirects to the entity it represents is highly unusual, however, particularly since the side passes GNG (there's more than "a little"). I think if references were added, it wouldn't be redirected or deleted in an AfD now. And I want to add said references p b p 04:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The football team passing the GNG is not quite obvious. Can you make a userspace version? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC) reply
I'd rather fix it in mainspace and start with the information in the old article. Userspace is just adding an extra unnecessary step p b p 15:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Commenting as the original deletion nominator: Just restoring the history is pointless unless you want to do something with the historic content, i.e., either restoring the article or merging the content somewhere. If you want to restore the article or re-argue the AfD based on new notability standards or references, you should draft a userspace stub that includes the references that you believe are now sufficient for notability.  Sandstein  05:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC) reply
See below comment p b p 15:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I agree with the original AfD closure. Today there is a lot more emphasis on passing WP:GNG, and about the only argument for retention put forward was that Sealand is a member of the N.F.-Board. However there does seem to have been a bit more coverage since then ( [1], for instance), so someone wants to write a userspace draft based on it it might be OK to move it into article space. The topic is already mentioned at Principality of Sealand#Sports, and it may be better to improve the coverage there instead of creating a stand-alone article. Hut 8.5 09:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The combo of [1], 2, 3 is enough to pass GNG IMO. And I'd like any userspace draft to start with the information that was in the old article, such as the kit (which I'd rather not recreate from here). And to be honest, I'd just rather fix it in mainspace, if that's alright with y'all. Also, while the keep argument may be flawed, so is the delete one, which amounts to "the N-F and Sealand are bogus, so this must be too". That's a total judgement call. p b p 15:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The BBC report is ok, but the second link is a press release and I don't know how reliable sabotagetimes.com is. I'm not sure that this is enough for an article, but if this discussion agrees that it does, the article can be restored as far as I am concerned.  Sandstein  15:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC) reply
There isn't actually anything preventing you from overwriting the redirect with a new article about the team, provided it is not substantially similar to the version which was deleted at AfD. I'm not really persuaded that there should be a separate article as opposed to a paragraph or two in the article about Sealand. The deleted version only cited a few team websites that have since gone dead and this stats site (which sort of confirms they once played a match, though they don't seem sure). Though the page did have the kit displayed it didn't cite any sources to show that really was the Sealand kit and the reformed team may well have a different kit, so you shouldn't just copy the kit from the old article unless you've found something to verify that it really is the Sealand kit. Hut 8.5 15:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The Sabotage article contains a photo that matches the kit p b p 16:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Well it doesn't actually match the kit in the article, since the photo has a white stripe that wasn't in the article version, and a picture of them wearing the kit can't act as a source for the statement that this is the team's official kit, or that this is their home kit. Hut 8.5 19:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I have a userspace draft up now at User:Purplebackpack89/Sealand, which contains five references and also five interwiki links. With your blessing, I will move it into mainspace p b p 20:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Well [2] is a forum post and definitely unreliable, and I'm not sure about [3]. Again a picture of the team wearing some kit isn't a source for the claim that this is their official kit. Apart from that I think it could be moved into mainspace, though it may be subject to a new AfD or merge discussion. Hut 8.5 15:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure N-F Board is the place for information about individual federations p b p 03:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
I think N.F.-Board#Members needs a little expansion for every time on the list. The other two associate members are red linked. Why? Does this suggest that associate membership of the N-F Board is not much in the way of notability? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
That's obviously an other stuff doesn't exist argument; but associate is higher than provisional, and six provisional members have bluelinks. Several N-F Board members were deleted around the same time Sealand was (five years ago), but no effort has been made to ascertain if they've met GNG since then. Sealand and a number of other N-F Board members do have articles on other Wikipedias p b p 16:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Since two of the three other editors have expressed sentiment for giving mainspace a go and seeing what happens, I'm going to...give mainspace a go p b p 03:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I support letting you do this (normally you shouldn't while the DRV is ongoing, and I thought it was a protected redirect??), and allowing any editor to take it to AfD. As the single AfD was so long ago, you shouldn't need to come to DRV to recreate. I still think that the old history should be undeleted. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk)
  • Endorse AfD - Closer determined consensus correctly. Also significant new information has not come to light since the deletion. No reason for a new AfD since the notability issues of the first AfD have not been overcome. The editors bypassed DRV process to post the article to main space and no effort has been made to get the information accepted into the redirect target article Sealand_national_football_team#Sports. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 11:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
"Significant new information has not come to light since the deletion." That's completely inaccurate. Most of the references in the article occurred years after the AfD you mention occurred. Since two editors have suggested mainspacing, I've leaving it in mainspace, and if you think it should be deleted, take it to AfD p b p 13:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: "Endorse" arguments are invalid, topic should either be relisted at AfD or kept Why? a) This is a completely different article than five years ago; the references used in it hadn't even been written yet; b) consensus can change. Five years is a long time to be reinforcing a consensus that was weak to begin with p b p 16:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse AfD the redirect seems to have been the best overall solution here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:39, 24 May 2012 (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/2012_May_17&oldid=1082337668"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2012 May 16
2012 May 18 >

17 May 2012

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Arthur Custance ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Seems eminently notable. (Page was prodded.) Rich  Farmbrough, 17:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC). reply

    • Expired prods can be restored on request, and I have done so. I have no comment on actual notability, but it can go to afd if anyone has doubts about it. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Sealand national football team – Original AfD endorsed, recreation allowed While there is marginally more sentiment for allowing recreation than not, there's also a clear consensus that there was nothing wrong with the previous AfD. Any editor may nominate the article for AfD normally, but I am restoring the history underneath the new article per the request and lack of articulated reason to not do so. – Jclemens ( talk) 06:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sealand national football team ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

History was not preserved as a result of the 2007 AfD; the old article was deleted and replaced with a redirect. Request recreation of pre-2007 history for the following reasons:

  1. The AfD should have been closed as no consensus rather than redirect; there were roughly the same number of keep votes as delete or redirect ones, and the keep ones had more of a basis in policy
  2. Some of the arguments used in deletion five years ago wouldn't wash in an AfD today; plus consensus can change, and certainly enough time has passed to revisit it
  3. Additional references to assert the team's notability have come to light since the AfD, due to the team resuming playing international fixtures since the 2007 AfD (See refs 64 and 65 in the Sealand article) p b p 16:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Agree, Restore the history, but endorse the redirect. There was consensus for the redirect, and redirect is still suitable because there is room at the target to say what little there is to say about the national football team. If a section on the national football team becomes large, it may be spun out as a separate article. Undeleting the history is reasonable, assuming that there was useful content there. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Having a football side redirects to the entity it represents is highly unusual, however, particularly since the side passes GNG (there's more than "a little"). I think if references were added, it wouldn't be redirected or deleted in an AfD now. And I want to add said references p b p 04:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The football team passing the GNG is not quite obvious. Can you make a userspace version? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC) reply
I'd rather fix it in mainspace and start with the information in the old article. Userspace is just adding an extra unnecessary step p b p 15:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Commenting as the original deletion nominator: Just restoring the history is pointless unless you want to do something with the historic content, i.e., either restoring the article or merging the content somewhere. If you want to restore the article or re-argue the AfD based on new notability standards or references, you should draft a userspace stub that includes the references that you believe are now sufficient for notability.  Sandstein  05:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC) reply
See below comment p b p 15:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I agree with the original AfD closure. Today there is a lot more emphasis on passing WP:GNG, and about the only argument for retention put forward was that Sealand is a member of the N.F.-Board. However there does seem to have been a bit more coverage since then ( [1], for instance), so someone wants to write a userspace draft based on it it might be OK to move it into article space. The topic is already mentioned at Principality of Sealand#Sports, and it may be better to improve the coverage there instead of creating a stand-alone article. Hut 8.5 09:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The combo of [1], 2, 3 is enough to pass GNG IMO. And I'd like any userspace draft to start with the information that was in the old article, such as the kit (which I'd rather not recreate from here). And to be honest, I'd just rather fix it in mainspace, if that's alright with y'all. Also, while the keep argument may be flawed, so is the delete one, which amounts to "the N-F and Sealand are bogus, so this must be too". That's a total judgement call. p b p 15:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The BBC report is ok, but the second link is a press release and I don't know how reliable sabotagetimes.com is. I'm not sure that this is enough for an article, but if this discussion agrees that it does, the article can be restored as far as I am concerned.  Sandstein  15:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC) reply
There isn't actually anything preventing you from overwriting the redirect with a new article about the team, provided it is not substantially similar to the version which was deleted at AfD. I'm not really persuaded that there should be a separate article as opposed to a paragraph or two in the article about Sealand. The deleted version only cited a few team websites that have since gone dead and this stats site (which sort of confirms they once played a match, though they don't seem sure). Though the page did have the kit displayed it didn't cite any sources to show that really was the Sealand kit and the reformed team may well have a different kit, so you shouldn't just copy the kit from the old article unless you've found something to verify that it really is the Sealand kit. Hut 8.5 15:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The Sabotage article contains a photo that matches the kit p b p 16:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Well it doesn't actually match the kit in the article, since the photo has a white stripe that wasn't in the article version, and a picture of them wearing the kit can't act as a source for the statement that this is the team's official kit, or that this is their home kit. Hut 8.5 19:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I have a userspace draft up now at User:Purplebackpack89/Sealand, which contains five references and also five interwiki links. With your blessing, I will move it into mainspace p b p 20:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Well [2] is a forum post and definitely unreliable, and I'm not sure about [3]. Again a picture of the team wearing some kit isn't a source for the claim that this is their official kit. Apart from that I think it could be moved into mainspace, though it may be subject to a new AfD or merge discussion. Hut 8.5 15:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure N-F Board is the place for information about individual federations p b p 03:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
I think N.F.-Board#Members needs a little expansion for every time on the list. The other two associate members are red linked. Why? Does this suggest that associate membership of the N-F Board is not much in the way of notability? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
That's obviously an other stuff doesn't exist argument; but associate is higher than provisional, and six provisional members have bluelinks. Several N-F Board members were deleted around the same time Sealand was (five years ago), but no effort has been made to ascertain if they've met GNG since then. Sealand and a number of other N-F Board members do have articles on other Wikipedias p b p 16:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Since two of the three other editors have expressed sentiment for giving mainspace a go and seeing what happens, I'm going to...give mainspace a go p b p 03:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I support letting you do this (normally you shouldn't while the DRV is ongoing, and I thought it was a protected redirect??), and allowing any editor to take it to AfD. As the single AfD was so long ago, you shouldn't need to come to DRV to recreate. I still think that the old history should be undeleted. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk)
  • Endorse AfD - Closer determined consensus correctly. Also significant new information has not come to light since the deletion. No reason for a new AfD since the notability issues of the first AfD have not been overcome. The editors bypassed DRV process to post the article to main space and no effort has been made to get the information accepted into the redirect target article Sealand_national_football_team#Sports. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 11:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
"Significant new information has not come to light since the deletion." That's completely inaccurate. Most of the references in the article occurred years after the AfD you mention occurred. Since two editors have suggested mainspacing, I've leaving it in mainspace, and if you think it should be deleted, take it to AfD p b p 13:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: "Endorse" arguments are invalid, topic should either be relisted at AfD or kept Why? a) This is a completely different article than five years ago; the references used in it hadn't even been written yet; b) consensus can change. Five years is a long time to be reinforcing a consensus that was weak to begin with p b p 16:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse AfD the redirect seems to have been the best overall solution here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:39, 24 May 2012 (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/2012_May_17&oldid=1082337668"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE