Zach Collier ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

My comment from the AfD:

From the closing admin's talk page:

After I restored the article, Spanneraol ( talk · contribs) misused rollback to revert my restoration.

I don't see much coverage outside of him surviving open-heart surgery and being drafted in the first round, which makes it human interest/ WP:ROUTINE and still fails WP:GNG. Being a first rounder, you get some coverage automatically, and surviving open heart surgery is very common.

Overturn to no consensus.

Cunard ( talk) 20:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply

• There is no doubt he meets the GNG (I'm seeing a number of articles purely about him). And the SNG in question defers to the GNG (though in practice that isn't always the case). The only real issue is if this belongs at DRV as it's a redirect that the closing admin indicates can be redone with regular editing. In any case, I'd agree with this being left as an article. Hobit ( talk) 10:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

• I would prefer that this is handled at DRV because I contest the AfD closer's assessment of the consensus. I undid the redirect as advised by the closing admin but was reverted by an AfD participant who did not explain the revert. Also, the article's talk page is watched by far fewer editors so DRV will draw more attention to the article. Cunard ( talk) 05:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC) reply

• There's an apparently unrefuted argument here that he meets WP:N, so I think either relisting or overturning to no consensus would be okay. Wily D 10:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC) reply
• As per the discussion on my talk page, I believe this is out of scope of DRV as it is discussing a redirect decision, not a deletion decision. Stifle ( talk) 11:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC) reply

• I do not think this is out of scope. In December 2009, the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 15#Updating Scope to handle AFDs closed as Merge generally was in favor of allowing DRV to review "merge" or "redirect" decisions. I agree with the position that DRV should review "merge" and "redirect" decisions because an AfD close as "merge" or "redirect" should not be immune to community review at DRV if an editor believes the consensus was assessed incorrectly.

  I disagree with the October 2014 change SmokeyJoe ( talk · contribs) made to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Purpose (see Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#Reverse a redirect decision, with no history deleted, at the talk page of the target article), so will be reverting it. Cunard ( talk) 05:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC) reply

• I don't think its DRVs job to simply declare it as notable and ignore the other AFD participants. At best this would come down to a relist. However as it was a redirect undoing that seems not unreasonable, as does the person who reverted that's action not seem unreasonable, it would seem to be a classic WP:BRD, what I'm failing to see is the D part of this from either side, any reason why? -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 12:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC) reply

• My argument in the nomination statement is that the AfD did not reach a consensus to declare the subject non-notable. Therefore, I argue that the AfD should have been closed as "no consensus". To overturn to no consensus, DRV does not have to declare the subject notable. Cunard ( talk) 05:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to no consensus - From reading the discussion, it seems that the participants are fairly evenly split on whether the coverage was sufficient to pass WP:GNG. I don't see a consensus outcome, so the discussion should have been closed as no consensus. Also, as an aside, I disagree with Stifle that users should feel free to undo a redirect outcome at AFD without adding additional sources beyond what were available to the AFD participants. A consensus to redirect at AFD is just as binding as a consensus to keep or delete at AFD, and for the exact same reason, that being that a group of editors considered the article and reached a consensus on what to do with it. Once a discussion has reached a consensus on an issue, then an editor shouldn't undo the result of that consensus unless new information has come to light that would change the situation (i.e., additional sources), or a new discussion results in a different consensus. However, in this specific case I don't think there was a consensus on what to do with the article. Calathan ( talk) 19:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC) reply

• Unilaterally overturning an AFD close (regardless of what the functional close might be) is not appropriate. Bringing it here would have been the better course of action. In effect, reverting the redirect simply dismissed the opinions of the editors who contributed to the AFD in good faith and the closing admin (regardless of their personal attachment to the close). That said, there would seem to be consensus (here) that the subject is notable, even if that consensus did not exist a few days ago in that AFD. The answer, then, is to relist to allow an equivalent consensus to develop there or to overturn to no consensus with the understanding that consensus can change, even within a few days. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 23:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC) reply
• Overturn (to no consensus). Revert the redirection. Slap User:Spanneraol for his bad reversion (the closer had even given Cunard explicit permission/encouragement to do it), noting that Spanneroal did not give a substantial reason for his revert. The sources referred to appear to be not great sources for building a biography, but I believe that they meet the GNG, as independent, secondary source, providing direct coverage of the subject. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC) reply

The article was unilaterally restored by an editor who disagreed with the AFD results. Reverting that is entirely permissible. Spanneraol ( talk) 23:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC) reply

The editor included in his edit summary a link to the discussion with the closer, a discussion providing clear evidence of the closer's support for the restoration. Perhaps Cunard should have been more perfect by ensuring that the link was a clickable bluelink. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC) reply

The closer doesnt express support for the restoration he simply said its allowed... not that he supports doing so. Cunard should have opened a discussion prior to restoring the article as it appeared he was just ignoring the AFD and doing whatever he wanted. Spanneraol ( talk) 01:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC) reply

I don't agree that the close was "wrong". "Delete" was no outside reasonable admin discretion, and the redirect close reads as like a nod to "no firm consensus to delete". The article discussed at AfD has a very weak lede (esp. "is a free agent"), and the content all feels primary source reporting material. Cunard listed a number of sources that contain secondary source content, but I consider them to be weak sources, reading like weekly sport reporting. The article needs work. At a minimum, userfication for improvement is, and was, obviously available. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, but Relist. While it's true that any editor can be bold and turn a redirect from an AfD back into an article, that's not carte blanche to just ignore the AfD consensus. The version that was restored is identical to the pre-AfD version, so all this amounted to is blowing off the AfD discussion. Where being bold makes sense is if you were to take a look at the concerns raised at AfD and address them in a new draft of the article. Then it's not, I don't care what you guys think, I'm doing my own thing. It's, You guys said X because of Y, and I've fixed Y, so X no longer applies. So, I think the original close was fine, but @ Stifle: provided bad advice when asked about it, and @ Cunard: compounded the error by listening to that bad advice, and then @ Spanneraol: further compounded the problem by reverting before talking. But, that's all about process. What really matters is evaluating the article. So, while I believe the original AfD was closed correctly, the consensus was not overwhelming, and there's obviously controversy, so relisting it to get a cleaner consensus seems like the right thing to do. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Updating my comment to clarify that I don't think there was anything wrong with the original close (hence, endorse) but given that this was a close call and there's controversy about it, another trip through AfD might provide clarity. On the other hand, I would not be opposed to letting the original close stand. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply

• It is unclear why you think the original AfD close was an accurate assessment of the consensus. It was not. Sources that three editors said established notability were not discussed by the editors who supported deletion. Consensus to "delete" or "redirect" cannot be achieved when significant coverage in reliable sources is not addressed or dismissed with unspecific comments like:
  1. Link: "Does not satisfy either the specific notability guideline for baseball players per WP:NBASEBALL nor the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG." – why do the sources Yankees10 ( talk · contribs) provided not establish that the subject passes GNG?
  2. Link: "I don't think there's enough to show he meets GNG" – again, why do the sources Yankees10 ( talk · contribs) provided not establish that the subject passes GNG?
  3. Link: "of the sources linked above, three articles appear to have identical text. In my opinion, the subject does not pass GNG." – six sources were listed in total. Why do the the four articles that don't have identical text not allow the subject to pass GNG?
  Bare assertions that the subject fails GNG should be accorded little weight when appraised with evidence and arguments that significant coverage in reliable sources establish notability.

  @ Stifle: provided bad advice when asked about it, and @ Cunard: compounded the error by listening to that bad advice – I undid the redirect because I interpreted Stifle's comment as noting that his AfD close as "redirect" is not binding. Why else would he have told me I could undo the redirect?

  Where being bold makes sense is if you were to take a look at the concerns raised at AfD and address them in a new draft of the article. – which concerns raised at the AfD were not already addressed in the deleted version? The only concern mentioned by the "delete" votes was that the subject was not notable. The deleted article uses sources that provide substantial coverage of the subject.

  Cunard ( talk) 04:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Five editors at this DRV have explicitly supported overturning to no consensus (some of them have also supported a relist). One editor has explicitly endorsed the close.

  I ask the DRV closer to note that the consensus here is that the AfD should have been closed as "no consensus", regardless of whether the DRV closer decides to relist this or not. Cunard ( talk) 04:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply