Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2015 May 5
2015 May 7 >

6 May 2015

  • Louisiana State University rugby – Overturned to "no consensus". Most people here, now also including the closer, agree that the "keep" closure does not reflect consensus. This closure allows for a renomination of the article, as has also been suggested. –  Sandstein  08:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Louisiana State University rugby ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The was no consensus to keep. Closers explanation is problematic. "After reviewing it, in the absence of another vote, I counted a 3-2 vote in favor of Keep." AfDs are not headcounts, the should be decided on the strength of policy based arguments. For the most part those arguing keep have weak arguments. WikiProject rugby union notability guidelines is not a policy. Both Dirtlawyer1 and MASEM directly address this in their !votes. Those "notability guidelines" are bad, relying too much on inherited notability (#4). Spatms claims that "this team is part of the national association governing rugby". That does not make them notable so that claim should be dismissed. Annieann1's !vote was that the article has primary sources, not a valid argument for notability so should be dismissed. Another problem with the closers head count is the numbers, "3-2 vote in favor of Keep." If one were to go purely on headcount then it would be 3-3. Closer inexcusably dismisses the nominator. Other justifications closer gives for their keep close are that it does no harm, there are other articles worse off, a lot of hard work was put into it. They are bad reasons. This should have come down to WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 explanation of why it fell short was a much stronger argument than any set out by Barryjjoyce and any of the "hit and run" keeps. Other reasons for closing keep were " players who have played in this program went on to play on the United States national rugby union team, and that the conference the team is part of the Southeastern Collegiate Rugby Conference." Neither were part of the discussion. This is a virtual supervote from someone who's denigration of delete proponent betrays a bias. duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Here was my rationale as the closing administrator (as explained on my talk page as well). Personally, I have no bias towards the topic, I delete/keep articles on many topics, and was just combing through a list of older AFD's. I read the arguments, I read the article itself, and my interpretation was a keep, albeit a weaker one. Here are the reasons why.
  • Rugby Notability Guidelines I deferred to the definitions in the wiki project which says a team is notable if, "Provided an administrator, player or coach of a High Performance Union." This right here should have been enough to close it after the last voting period.
  • WP:CONSENSUS "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." Which is exactly what I did. Honestly, the nominator contributed very little to the overall consensus, as they did not contribute in the discussion. A Keep where somebody cites a specific policy explaining why it is appropriate has far more weight than the delete of a nominator who posted it to AFD as a hit and run.
  • WP:IAR - At the end of the day, including this article in Wikipedia does it no harm, and in fact, in my opinion, adds value to it for the following reasons:
  • That it had been in debate for almost 3 weeks, when there is SO many more articles that are in desperate need of attention is to me, a huge waste of effort and resources (another reason for WP:IAR)
  • Somebody put a lot of work into the article, and as a reader with experience in peer review, I, although by a weak margin, felt it asserted notability, and that the sources were good enough for inclusion, far better than hundreds of other articles I have seen that nobody is fighting to have deleted.
  • The Strict definition of notability" which was argued for, is no where near as cut and dry as it was make it out to be. For example, a reputable school news paper may be an independent source, assuming nobody from the rugby team is writing the article. That is something that we have to judge, not blindly throw away.
  • If more editors went to the effort to clean their articles up, include as many references as possible, and make an honest Good faith effort to bring an article that would have been nothing more than a stub up to an article that actually has a good amount of content, this significantly improves Wikipedia as a whole.
  • Additionally, that an editor who was a huge proponent of a Delete decision AND was the one who re-listed it, is also something to be brought up as well. If you are participating in a discussion, and the voting period has ended, extending the choice to extend it should be made by somebody impartial/uninvolved in the discussion, otherwise, it turns into a, "if I can relist this before an admin closes it, then I can get more time to change the outcome."

In summary, I came in with no background and an objective mind about the decision to be made, and was not afraid to make it with the available information. The AFD had been open for more than 2 weeks with enough consensus in my judgement to close it, and, even if in the next 3 days, 5 hit and run deletes came up, they would have had to have very strong arguments given what I provided above. Chris lk02 Chris Kreider 12:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Additionally, the DRV request seems to violate WP:AGF when the nominator says "...from someone who's denigration of delete proponent betrays a bias." Lets keep a positive tone here please. At the end of the day, we are all volunteers who are trying to make Wikipedia a better place. Chris lk02 Chris Kreider 12:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'd count it 3-3 since the nominator is a delete too, I think when it's apparently evenly split like that the admin should really do a better job of explaining their outcome in the closing comment. Personally I see it as no-consensus at best more towards delete, but quibbling between no-consensus and keep is a fools game, just renominate it for deletion after a suitable gap. Looking into the admins statement here though I see several flaws. (1) Wikiprojects don't get to dictate guidelines, if they want broad community consensus that a guideline is supposed to enjoy, they need to put it in front of the broad community to endorse. This was said in the AFD and seems to have been ignored there and here, disappointing (2) Yes re consensus, yet the desciption of a hit and run comment at AFD without strength of rationale seems to apply to the keep vote of Annieann1 as well as anyone, spatms pretty much sole reliance on a wikiprojects guideline (see 1) is not much better either again pretty disappointing that much weight seems to have been given to this, since weight has been apparently been dismissed for such a perceived flaw on the delete side (3) and IAR argument presented here does indeed lead to suggestion that the closing admin couldn't find a consensus, so instead injected their own view on how the encyclopedia should be developed (If the close was correct on the first few points, there are no rule to ignore, so bring IAR into this does suggest no real conviction that the close was correct based on the other points). Finally on the matter of WP:AGF perhaps/perhaps not, but DRV isn't dispute resolution, we aren't going to punish someone for not WP:AGF, we are going to be looking at what the correct outcome should be. Though I'd note the comment suggesting potential motivation for the person doing the relisting is certainly heading towards the same territory regarding WP:AGF. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 21:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Response to duffbeerforme:

  1. The summary above by duffbeerforme bears very little resemblance to the actual AfD discussion. His description of the arguments raised in favor of "keep" are at best incomplete and at worst innaccurate. For anyone who is interested in this discussion, take all of the above statements with a grain of salt, and read the AfD yourself, or even better, read the article. The article, in its current form, has 26 cites from a wide variety of sources.
  2. duffbeerforme was the one who began the AfD. It was one of 11 AfDs he initiated during a two-day span, and in 10 out of those 11 AfDs, duffbeerforme made no further contributions to the AfD discussion after submitting the nomination. However, this is the third time in the past two weeks that duffbeerforme has initiated a DRV discussion protesting a decision he did not like. I don't think it is productive for an editor to serially start drive-by AfDs, decline to make meaningful contributions to discussions after initiating them, and then appeal the decision on DRV.
  3. After launching this DRV, duffbeerforme chose to notify only two people: the admin who closed the discussion and the only other editor who had argued strenuously in favor of delete. He declined to notify any of the three editors who had argued to keep the article. I stumbled upon this purely by accident.
  4. There has been much criticism of the WikiProject notability guidelines, with editors suggesting they are somehow unmoored from the general notability guidelines. Those criticizing these guidelines don't seem to have read the WP:RU guidelines closely, in particular the opening section: "In general, a topic is presumed to be notable if it has been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."
Although I've been on Wikipedia for some time, this is the first time I have participated in a DRV discussion, so I apologize if I have misunderstood the process here or how things are supposed to work. Barryjjoyce ( talk) 01:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
1. Anyone commenting on the close should always read the AfD. They would be seriously remiss if they failed to do so. The summary is not just of the AfD but also the closers justification on their talk page. It's not intended as a complete summary, just raising some relevant points.
2. Misleading ADHOM.
3. I notified the closer (as I had to) and the editor that first questioned the close at the closers talk page so was directly involved in the review process. Nothing inappropriate there.
4. That first bit is good and already exists in policies. That does not change the fact that other bits are bad.
Yes, you've missed the purpose. It's to discuss decisions made as a result of deletion discussions, not to have a go at me. duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Trouts all round. Chrislk02, your long explanation above is a keep vote, not a closing statement. Dirtlawyer, don't relist debates you've voted on in the hope of getting more time to change the outcome. Wikiproject Rugby people, wikiprojects don't get to make up their own inclusion rules and expect them to be binding on everyone else- because everyone knows enthusiasts' standards for what's notable and what's not are usually unreasonably lax. As for this debate, it seems the delete side's arguments are stronger and better thought out, but not so much so that it would be an unshakeable consensus. Clsing as no consensus would have been the most appropriate. Reyk YO! 07:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Reyk, I'll keep your trout and throw it on the grill. Chrislk02 (and you) clearly need to read the AfD dialog regarding the relisting: it was not done in the hope of changing the outcome in favor of deletion (the !vote was snarled at 3–3, and I expected a no-consensus outcome). It was done in the spirit of collegiality to give Barry an extra 7 days to pursue additional references that were being discussed in the AfD. Both you and Chris should actually read my AfD comments before you comment further here. Virtually every point raised here was directly addressed in the AfD. Barry was making fine progress by adding new sources at the time of the premature close by Chris, and the AfD should have been simply allowed to play out with Barry's work. Instead, we got a premature close, based on several very bad rationales, and this DRV. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 10:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - I'm not a huge fan of the bastard stepchildren of WP:N, but they are invariably used as either or - Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability might not be a policy, but neither is WP:N - J. Random AfD is not the place to argue this long-standing practice shouldn't occur at all (for an exception to usual practice, perhaps. But to deny the general practice just undermines the position). Similiar, WP:ROUTINE is invoked, but by editor(s) who clearly don't understand it at all. This also substantially undermines the delete position. So, yes, there's a balanced headcount, but the deletion position asserts things about precedent, practice, and policy that are unambiguously false - it's not unreasonable to discount that position as ill-argued and mis-applies policy. It's not a vote, it's a discussion, and !voters who don't familiarise themselves with the situation before arguing can't be taken as seriously. Wily D 09:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Wily, you clearly need to familiarize yourself with the various elements of WP:ROUTINE and the various elaborations of the meaning of "routine coverage" in other related guidelines. Furthermore, no WikiProject has standing to adopt its own notability guidelines for subjects within its scope -- to assert otherwise borders on the fantastic. There are only two applicable guidelines in this AfD: the specific notability guideline for clubs, teams, companies and other organizations per WP:ORG, and the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Neither is "policy," but they are both Wikipedia guidelines, and they are the only permissible bases upon which to determine the notability of a sports team/club. These are the same guidelines we use to determine the notability of NCAA Division I intercollegiate sports teams, NFL football teams, Japanese minor league baseball teams, association football clubs, and NBA basketball teams -- and none of the Wikiprojects for college sports, baseball, American football, association football or basketball have ever attempted to argue their own in-house notability guidelines should apply to clubs/teams/leagues within their scope. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 10:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Jeez, please read and understand WP:ROUTINE before lecturing me. Similarly, both ORG and N say "use your brain and judgement" - it's patently silly for you to assert here that they're "the only permissible bases upon which to determine the notability of a sports team/club". That you have made arguments without bothering to familiarise yourself with the circumstances, policies, precendents, is unfortunate. That you're doubling down, and attacking the other editors around, is not okay. Wily D 08:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Gee whiz, Wily, I'm not attacking you, I'm simply pointing out that you're wrong on several of the points you assert above. You have denigrated the importance of the general notability guidelines per WP:N/WP:GNG and the specific notability guideline for organizations per WP:ORG, saying they're "not policy". For what it's worth, I agree that's true, they're not "policy"; they're guidelines; very little guidance on Wikipedia notability constitutes "policy". You also strongly implied that a WikiProject may adopt its own notability guideline for subjects within its scope. Sorry, one of us is wrong on these points, but it's not me. Without WP:GNG and WP:ORG, we are simply making up our own notability "rules" as we go. I would be curious to hear other "circumstances, policies, precendents" you think are relevant in this discussion; so far, you've been pretty vague on those points.
As for WP:ROUTINE, here's what it says, in relevant part:
"Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. . . . Wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all. Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable."
WP:ROUTINE is an important corollary to the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG, and a sound understanding of significant coverage must consider WP:ROUTINE. Bottom line: a two-paragraph post-game summary of a rugby match in Rugby Today is routine coverage, not significant coverage for purposes of determining the notability of a rugby club team. If we accepted your interpretation, every high school sports team in the United States would be notable and entitled to a stand-alone Wikipedia article based on the routine coverage they regularly receive; that would be an absurd result. And I can tell you, based on my own intimate familiarity with American high school and college sports, that the subject rugby club team of this article receives far, far, far less newspaper coverage than the typical American high school football team.
You say that "it's patently silly" for me to assert that WP:GNG and WP:ORG are "the only permissible bases upon which to determine the notability of a sports team/club". Okay, you're entitled to your opinion, but how about telling the rest of us what you believe are the other permissible bases for determining the notability of a sports team/club? And please be perfectly clear: is it permissible for a WikiProject to adopt its own notability standard for subjects within its scope and expect other editors to accept that as part of an AfD discussion? I unequivocally assert that no WikiProject has that authority, and it appears that several knowledgeable participants in this discussion agree. I think the burden is on you to provide some authority for that assertion. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 13:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn (to no consensus) per User:Reyk. Participants should not relist. The closer's explanation is embarrassing. It would be very difficult to justify deletion given the improvement of the article during the discussion. Give it at least two months and then allow renomination. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Given Barry's progress in adding additional sources, the AfD should have been allowed to run the remaining four days of the relisting. That said, Chris' "keep" rationale is a complete mess, based on a bogus WikiProject in-house notability "guideline" and several other non-factors that should have never been cited (conference membership? former players on the national team? school newspapers are independent coverage? huh?), and because of the bad rationale the close should be overturned to "no consensus". I was not the nominator of this AfD, and I have no intention of filing/relisting the article at AfD because Barry was making progress in adding additional sources, which were actually being discussed at length in the AfD. Instead of an elaboration of what sources are "independent" regarding a college sports team/club, or what constitutes "significant coverage" or what is or is not "routine" in the closing rationale, we got gobbledygook that is contrary to the applicable notability guidelines and years worth of sports team AfD precedents. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 10:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Dirtlawyer, I am not sure if we are in any disagreement? It's not a great article, but I've seen worse kept. And I would like to see Barryjjoyce given a chance. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • No, we really are not in disagreement. It was a bad article with one independent source before Barry started adding references, and before I started describing what an "independent" source is in the context of establishing the notability of a college sports team/club. I am also quite offended by Chris' attempt to mischaracterize my reason for relisting the AfD for another 7 days as an attempt to game the system, and buy more time to rally "delete" votes. That is complete bullshit, and no participant in this discussion should accept that at face value. Here are the relevant excerpts of what was actually said in the AfD:
Barry: "I'll continue to work over the next few days on continuing to find more cites and on replacing existing cites with better cites."
Dirtlayer: "Barry, I appreciate your efforts to improve the article; that's partly how the AfD process is supposed to work. . . ."
Barry: "Thanks for the positive suggestions on how to improve the article. I've added a few more cites, and will continue to add more over the coming days."
Dirtlawyer: "Barry, if you're mining a productive vein of new sources, I would be happy to slap another "relisting" template on the bottom of this AfD to buy you another week -- would that help? If you're being productive in your research, you should have the time to finish. Let me know."
Barry: "I've continued to improve the article since this discussion began 4 weeks ago. It is up to 26 cites now from a variety of sources. Unlike in previous posts, where the article was improving as the discussion progressed, I think the article improvement project is reaching a point of diminishing returns. Hopefully the article is good enough as-is. I don't plan to work on it much further at this point. I hope we can reach consensus, close this discussion, and keep the article."
Dirtlawyer: "Thanks for all your work, Barry. It's obviously a lot closer than it was before you started working on it. I re-listed the debate for another week yesterday, so we should have some breathing space. I'll take a look at your new references in a day or so, and let you know what I think."
It's a really shitty thing for Chris to do, taking a collegial gesture of working together, and then construing it as an attempt on my part to game the system. With a another independent source with significant coverage added by Barry, I might very well have changed my vote for a 4–2 close instead of a 3–3 deadlock and a closing administrator supervote. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 11:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
While I can't say that I would sign off on your precise words, I don't see anything you say that I would choose to disagree with. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse closure; a delete was not a possible outcome. Dirtlawyer1 should not have relisted because (a) it had already been listed twice and (b) he/she was involved. Stifle ( talk) 10:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Stifle: Did you read the rationale for my relisting stated in the AfD? Perhaps you should. "Delete" was not a likely outcome, but neither was "keep" at the time of the relisting. The relisting was done in the spirit of collegiality to give the strongest "keep" proponent another 7 days to add additional sources. That's not a conflict of interest; that's good manners. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 11:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn to no consensus - The closing rationale by a long-time administrator is one of the weakest I have seen in 5+ years of participating in AfDs for sports teams, leagues and athletes. In four more days of the relisting, there may have been a clear basis for "keep," but the closer's rationale seems to be a series of arguments in search of an actual notability guideline. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 11:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Note I want to make it clear that I made no assumption of bad faith on the part of anybody involved in this as @ Dirtlawyer1: has raised as a concern on my talk page. It was included as part of my rationale to explain why I closed it without letting it run through an entire relist period. I think we are all here trying to do our best to contribute to this project in a way that betters it, and we will not always see eye to eye on what that means. That being said, I stand by the assertion that, as a general principle, one who is heavily involved in a discussion should not be one who relists it, regardless of whether they were in support or opposition, and regardless of their motives. Chris lk02 Chris Kreider 13:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
    For someone who has in part justified there closed based on WP:IAR concerning arguments which routinely get dismissed by consensus views, it's somewhat disingenuous to say "regardless of their motives". For me reading your original statement above and your revised view here there is a fair disconnect, it would be better to add a clarification or retraction to your original comment at the point it was made. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 18:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above statement is meant to express the principle as a general. For example, it to me seems highly likely the a potential WP:COI exists when an editor actively involved in an WP:AFD is the editor who relists it (and this sentiment seems echoed by several others above as well). Regardless of motives or position, being so closely involved in the discussion leaves the WP:COI door wide open, and this extends beyond the current AFD under DRV. I added the above note to clarify for a fellow editor (@ Dirtlawyer1: who had expressed it as a concern on my talk page), who had re-listed it to give another editor time to make changes (assumed to be in good faith). It sucks when you go out of your way to try and help someone, and you feel like it gets thrown back in your face, Ive been there before, and that was not, and has never been my goal. In the big picture, I think it is important to strive to be above reproach, and, a more appropriate action that could have achieved the same outcome would have been to leave a note for the reviewing admin saying "Hey, can we have another week to work on this?" In that case, another editor not involved could have come along and made the decision from an objective point of view, closing the WP:COI door, making it a non-issue completely. Hope that clarifies things for you! Chris lk02 Chris Kreider 19:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Endorse. This should probably be no consensus, but in my mind overturning "Keep" to "No Consensus" is timewasting policy wonkery. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 04:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC). reply
  • Overturn that debate was no consensus leaning delete, and the justification by the closing admin above is seriously flawed:
  • This page is not a policy or guideline and should not be used as the justification for an AfD close. Pages like that are potentially helpful rules of thumb and people who rely on them should be given less weight than those who cite policies and guidelines. Even if the Wikiproject guidelines are "based on and explicitly reference Wikipedia's generally applicable notability guidelines" that makes no difference.
  • The fact that the nominator didn't take part in the debate has no relevance to the outcome, and only two editors did (one from each side). "A Keep where somebody cites a specific policy explaining why it is appropriate" should indeed have substantial weight, but there weren't any in this debate.
  • That a debate has been open for three weeks is a good reason to close it but is not a good reason to close it with any particular outcome.
  • The IAR reasons listed are the personal opinions of the closer and would get very little weight if listed in a Keep comment. Very few articles deleted on notability grounds are submitted in bad faith or actively harm the encyclopedia, but that doesn't stop them from being deleted. AfD discussions are not closed by having an objective observer review the debate and decide which side they think is right.
Turning to the debate itself, while the Keep comments themselves didn't cite any policies or guidelines, in the subsequent discussion the argument was made that the sources in the article were enough to satisfy WP:GNG. That argument is more solid and I don't think it can be discounted, so No Consensus is probably the best close. Dirtlawyer1 should not have relisted the discussion as a participant but this didn't affect the outcome. Hut 8.5 05:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC) reply

This may or may not be a bit off-topic, but since there has been much discussion here about the role of WikiProject advice pages guidelines, I'll point out that a number of WikiProjects have created their own notability advice pages guidelines. See [[Category:WikiProject notability essays]]. This includes a number of sports related WikiProjects, such as:

There has been a fair amount of discussion here about how much weight to place on these advice pages guidelines. Is there a consensus on this issue? Barryjjoyce ( talk) 02:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Barry, in terms of AfD discussions for athletes and teams, in-house WikiProject notability "guidelines" have no authority whatsoever. If an individual WikiProject wants to provide additional guidance to its members, that's between the WikiProject and its members. Conversely, I am aware of several WikiProjects that have tougher notability standards than those that are applicable Wikipedia-wide; there is a serious question whether that, too, is permissible. I am an active member of three of the four WikiProjects you listed above, and I regularly participate in AfDs withing the scope of the fourth; I cannot recall in any AfD in the last five years where anyone successfully cited to an "in-house" WikiProject guideline as authority for keeping an article that would otherwise have been deleted. That said, WikiProjects seem to have a fair amount of latitude in determining what articles should be combined into larger articles or lists; e.g., WikiProject College Football routinely combines non-championship seasons into decade articles; WikiProject Baseball routinely combines marginally notable minor league players into lists grouped by MLB franchise minor league systems. Remember: satisfying GNG (or any other specific notability standard) only raises a presumption of inclusion; it may be that covering the topic as part of a larger article or list is determined to be a better approach for a variety of reasons. I will also note that WP:NSPORTS incorporates sport-specific notability guidelines for athletes in something like two dozen different sports (including both forms of rugby). To the best of my knowledge, there are no formally adopted specific notability guidelines for teams in different sports; all teams -- professional, semi-pro, major league, minor league, American college (and otherwise), amateur, etc. -- must satisfy the specific notability guideline of WP:ORG and/or the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG. In practical application, WP:GNG and WP:ORG are nearly identical in terms of what they require, but ORG is somewhat more specific for organizations. Essays, whether their topic is notability or something else, only have such authority as individual editors ascribe to them, which means if the essay's logic appeals to you, feel free to cite it, but remember no one is required to accept it. In my opinion, where your in-house "guideline," Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability, runs into trouble is in defining classes of "notable" teams without any reference to WP:GNG or WP:ORG; given that disconnect, it is inevitable that articles for college and amateur rugby teams are going to run into trouble at AfD. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 03:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I'd disagree that wikiprojects have guidelines in so far as guidelines have a specific meaning on Wikipedia - Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines lays out how things become "real" guidelines and it certainly isn't merley a wikiproject setting up a page and declaring it a guideline. Taking into account that (a) any one can setup a wikiproject on any subject they want any time they want and (b) wikiproject can have either direct or indirect overlaps with each other and (c) under any wikiproject anyone can at any time setup a page about notability and (d) wikiprojects by nature indicate they will be frequented by people interested in that area. Do you then think there would be a community consensus that such details on notability which may or may not yet be written, under such a project which may or may not yet exist, would some how be considered to automatically have broad community support? -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 07:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Reply to 86.2.216.5 comment on 07:29, 9 May 2015: Thank you, I found your concise response helpful. In my question I had misused the word "guideline"; I should have said "advice pages", so I have corrected my poor choice of words above. Following up on your other points, do you think that different amount of weight should be placed on notability advice pages from different WikiProjects? For example, would it be your position that the notability advice page from the now inactive Arena Football League WikiProject would be given no weight, but that the notability advice page from the very active WP:FOOTY WikiProject would be given some weight? If yes, how much weight? If no, why not. Barryjjoyce ( talk) 15:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply
I think I might have just answered my own question. The following text appears on several WikiProject notability pages. I have added it to the WikiProject rugby union notability page, which should be helpful in any future rugby AfD discussions.
"This advice is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, and it may not provide valid criteria for an AfD nomination. However, it may be consulted for assistance during an AfD discussion or when considering creating a standalone article. The degree of consensus that went into creating this essay (a potential measurement of the reliability of the advice) can be judged by consulting the history and talk pages." Barryjjoyce ( talk) 16:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply
I'll answer nevertheless, it's possible that one essay enjoys more support than some other, but I don't think it makes much difference. In reality it either enjoys broad community support or it doesn't, if it's believe it's the former then someone should do the leg work to get it promoted to be a guideline, if no one has done that, then it's perhaps not an unreasonable view to take that it doesn't. Regarding the template on some of these, again I would be careful of what that means. Any essay can be referred to in a deletion discussion, in and of itself it doesn't give it any weight, it's much more a shorthand for an argument rather than expanding it in full each time, if the opinion is at odds with guidelines and policies it doesn't create any sort of requirement that it should be followed. I'd note it got listed for deletion at some point, and although it was kept there seems to be a strong suggestion it's not worded very well - though not really fixed since then. As to how much the sentiment on that template reflects community view is I guess debatable also, it says things like projects being encouraged to come up with their own notability essays, it doesn't say who is encouraging this or why. The history of the template and it's talk page seem distinctly lacking in terms of contribution or discussion. For the example I gave it was changed here with an edit summary of tighten - where it used to say "WikiProjects are encouraged to write essays on notability that meet or exceed the expectations of notability..." quite how removing that additional wording is "tightening" I don't know and seems to have been done with no discussion. Don't get me wrong I have no problem with such essays and such templates, but they don't override the actual underlying policies and guidelines. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 17:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and reclose by another admin Any admin that cites IAR as a reason to ignore guidelines simply doesn't get how AFD works and then to count votes rather then assess arguments.... Tsk tsk. An example of how not to do it and invalidates any discretion we should offer the closer. Spartaz Humbug! 15:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Relist The article is sufficiently changed since the beginning of the afd that a new discussion would be helpful. I personally doubt the team is notable. For many years there have been contradictions of various sorts between our general guidelines and our guidelines for sports, and there has never been a firm conclusion over which supersedes the other--whether the sports guidelines if more restrictive do or not apply if the GNG is met; or whether the sports guidelines if less restrictive apply, regardless of whether or not the GNG is met. Our statement of these have varied considerably over the 8 years I;ve been here. (My own view, fwiw, is that the potential over-coverage of sports is so great, that whatever guideline is them ore restrictive should apply, except for earlier Olympic athletes,), This is especially the case for the minor sports, and most especially those sports which are major in some countries but not in others, as applied to athletes in the countries where they are not major sports--I think the danger of overcoverage in the places where they are minor is so great that I would be quite restrictive). But this is only my own personal view, and almost any other position on them is quite defensible. Idon;t think the closing is an outright error, though I would have probably closed non-consensus. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • @ DGG: Your point, DGG, is a good one -- whether the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG trump specific notability guidelines such as WP:NSPORTS, or vice versa -- but that's not really the key question in this AfD. In fact, for the sports in whose related AfDs I regularly participate -- American football, basketball, baseball, college football, college basketball -- it's pretty well settled that it's an "and/or" situation, that is, satisfying either GNG or NSPORTS is sufficient evidence of notability. What we have here, however, is a cat of a different stripe. WikiProject Rugby Union has written its own "guideline" regarding the notability of rugby teams and leagues, including semi-pro, amateur, and college club teams, and the WikiProject has not sought any form of Wikipedia-wide sanction for its in-house "guidelines" from "the entire community," as required by Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. There is already a specific notability guideline for sports leagues, teams and clubs -- it's WP:ORG. In fact, WP:NSPORTS, the specific notability guideline for sports subjects expressly states "It is not intended that [WP:NSPORTS] should apply to sports clubs and teams; for these the specific notability guideline is WP:ORG." That's pretty darn clear. So, the issue here is whether WikiProject Rugby Union may adopt its own "guideline" -- the "guideline" cited by the closing administrator -- without consultation with the wider community, and in contravention of WP:ORG, and then expect the wider community to accept it. So, what do you think? Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 06:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • In all my years of participating here I've rarely seen a clearer case for a "no consensus" outcome. DRV has consistently refused to enforce specific notability guidelines such as NSPORTS where they conflict with the GNG, and there is absolutely no question that in cases of doubt the GNG should always prevail.— S Marshall T/ C 11:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC) reply
DelRev has consistently endorsed some special notability guidelines--politicians, PROF, Geographic features, and even some Common Outcomes. The sports guideline has distinctively been the special guideline most disputed. The GNG itself states it does not apply in all situations. What is undoubtedly the case is that all special guidelines of any sort need to be accepted by the wider community, and cannot be assumed to be all automatically valid.
S Marshall, do you mean that in your opinion a sports person or team is notable only if it meets both the general and special guideline, or that they are notable if and only if they meet the GNG alone.? DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The SNGs that we've most consistently declined to enforce include PORNBIO and martial arts-related ones. I'm not aware of any cases where we've enforced a SNG where the GNG wasn't met—ever. We have turned to SNGs for clarification and supporting arguments on occasion and I think that's what a SNG is for. They're ancillary to the GNG. I think that with any article, including biographies of sportspeople, they're notable if and only if they meet the GNG. It's the single, solitary, necessary and sufficient, condition for notability.— S Marshall T/ C 18:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I agree with S Marshall's observation, that the sub notability guidelines are consistently considered to be subservient to the GNG, but with the exceptions of WP:PROF and WP:CORP, both of which were respected guidelines before WP:N. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • There is also NGEO, probably the most widely used alternative guideline of them all. And I thing POLITICIAN and ENTERTAINER--and even ANYBIO. The current reading of WP:BIO under the heading of "additional standards" is "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. " Additional means standards other then GNG. And NSPORTS says explicitly,"'The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below."' Note the "OR". OR does not mean AND. (despite all this, I agree that NSPORTS is a guideline under constant dispute, and I would not assume that any part of it actually has general consensus) DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I would not associate POLITICIAN ENTERTAINER ANYBIO or NSPORTS with anything like the credibility/respectability associated with PROF, when it comes to relaxing the general standard. The fine text of the dubious subguidelines carries little weight if the topic fails the GNG. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn to no-consensus First off, this was one of the 1st AFD closes I made in over 4 years (the last one I can find before a pretty significant period of inactivity was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marchan-dising), and it seems that alot has changed since then. Secondly, as the closing administrator, this long draw out DRV was not my intention, I was hoping to put an end to a long running AFD that would never be a clear delete, although it seems to have sparked some heated discussion on WP:NOTABILITY. Finally, I think the idea that WP:GNG provides the base criteria for generic inclusion, and sub-groups provide the criteria that the WP:GNG criteria must meet is a good approach (and one mirrored in many real world domains such as academia). For example, an article on a school that was up for deletion had "...the school had difficulty finding qualified German teachers, so the possibility that the school would have to cancel its German classes existed added to it, citing it as independent external coverage. I brought up the argument that it sounded more like the minutes from a PTA meeting, not an encyclopedic article. Not all coverage indicates notability, that needs to be accepted, we need to use a little common sense along with WP:GNG, and it should be up to specific areas of focus to determine what that "common sense" should be to determine if coverage is notable. Chris lk02 Chris Kreider 12:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • It sounds like a standard WP:Supervote. Your input sounds quite considered and substantial, but amounts to a !vote, not a close. Can I suggest that you revert your close, !vote instead, and then leave it for someone else to close? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:06, 13 May 2015 (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/2015_May_6&oldid=1136459964"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2015 May 5
2015 May 7 >

6 May 2015

  • Louisiana State University rugby – Overturned to "no consensus". Most people here, now also including the closer, agree that the "keep" closure does not reflect consensus. This closure allows for a renomination of the article, as has also been suggested. –  Sandstein  08:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Louisiana State University rugby ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The was no consensus to keep. Closers explanation is problematic. "After reviewing it, in the absence of another vote, I counted a 3-2 vote in favor of Keep." AfDs are not headcounts, the should be decided on the strength of policy based arguments. For the most part those arguing keep have weak arguments. WikiProject rugby union notability guidelines is not a policy. Both Dirtlawyer1 and MASEM directly address this in their !votes. Those "notability guidelines" are bad, relying too much on inherited notability (#4). Spatms claims that "this team is part of the national association governing rugby". That does not make them notable so that claim should be dismissed. Annieann1's !vote was that the article has primary sources, not a valid argument for notability so should be dismissed. Another problem with the closers head count is the numbers, "3-2 vote in favor of Keep." If one were to go purely on headcount then it would be 3-3. Closer inexcusably dismisses the nominator. Other justifications closer gives for their keep close are that it does no harm, there are other articles worse off, a lot of hard work was put into it. They are bad reasons. This should have come down to WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 explanation of why it fell short was a much stronger argument than any set out by Barryjjoyce and any of the "hit and run" keeps. Other reasons for closing keep were " players who have played in this program went on to play on the United States national rugby union team, and that the conference the team is part of the Southeastern Collegiate Rugby Conference." Neither were part of the discussion. This is a virtual supervote from someone who's denigration of delete proponent betrays a bias. duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Here was my rationale as the closing administrator (as explained on my talk page as well). Personally, I have no bias towards the topic, I delete/keep articles on many topics, and was just combing through a list of older AFD's. I read the arguments, I read the article itself, and my interpretation was a keep, albeit a weaker one. Here are the reasons why.
  • Rugby Notability Guidelines I deferred to the definitions in the wiki project which says a team is notable if, "Provided an administrator, player or coach of a High Performance Union." This right here should have been enough to close it after the last voting period.
  • WP:CONSENSUS "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." Which is exactly what I did. Honestly, the nominator contributed very little to the overall consensus, as they did not contribute in the discussion. A Keep where somebody cites a specific policy explaining why it is appropriate has far more weight than the delete of a nominator who posted it to AFD as a hit and run.
  • WP:IAR - At the end of the day, including this article in Wikipedia does it no harm, and in fact, in my opinion, adds value to it for the following reasons:
  • That it had been in debate for almost 3 weeks, when there is SO many more articles that are in desperate need of attention is to me, a huge waste of effort and resources (another reason for WP:IAR)
  • Somebody put a lot of work into the article, and as a reader with experience in peer review, I, although by a weak margin, felt it asserted notability, and that the sources were good enough for inclusion, far better than hundreds of other articles I have seen that nobody is fighting to have deleted.
  • The Strict definition of notability" which was argued for, is no where near as cut and dry as it was make it out to be. For example, a reputable school news paper may be an independent source, assuming nobody from the rugby team is writing the article. That is something that we have to judge, not blindly throw away.
  • If more editors went to the effort to clean their articles up, include as many references as possible, and make an honest Good faith effort to bring an article that would have been nothing more than a stub up to an article that actually has a good amount of content, this significantly improves Wikipedia as a whole.
  • Additionally, that an editor who was a huge proponent of a Delete decision AND was the one who re-listed it, is also something to be brought up as well. If you are participating in a discussion, and the voting period has ended, extending the choice to extend it should be made by somebody impartial/uninvolved in the discussion, otherwise, it turns into a, "if I can relist this before an admin closes it, then I can get more time to change the outcome."

In summary, I came in with no background and an objective mind about the decision to be made, and was not afraid to make it with the available information. The AFD had been open for more than 2 weeks with enough consensus in my judgement to close it, and, even if in the next 3 days, 5 hit and run deletes came up, they would have had to have very strong arguments given what I provided above. Chris lk02 Chris Kreider 12:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Additionally, the DRV request seems to violate WP:AGF when the nominator says "...from someone who's denigration of delete proponent betrays a bias." Lets keep a positive tone here please. At the end of the day, we are all volunteers who are trying to make Wikipedia a better place. Chris lk02 Chris Kreider 12:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'd count it 3-3 since the nominator is a delete too, I think when it's apparently evenly split like that the admin should really do a better job of explaining their outcome in the closing comment. Personally I see it as no-consensus at best more towards delete, but quibbling between no-consensus and keep is a fools game, just renominate it for deletion after a suitable gap. Looking into the admins statement here though I see several flaws. (1) Wikiprojects don't get to dictate guidelines, if they want broad community consensus that a guideline is supposed to enjoy, they need to put it in front of the broad community to endorse. This was said in the AFD and seems to have been ignored there and here, disappointing (2) Yes re consensus, yet the desciption of a hit and run comment at AFD without strength of rationale seems to apply to the keep vote of Annieann1 as well as anyone, spatms pretty much sole reliance on a wikiprojects guideline (see 1) is not much better either again pretty disappointing that much weight seems to have been given to this, since weight has been apparently been dismissed for such a perceived flaw on the delete side (3) and IAR argument presented here does indeed lead to suggestion that the closing admin couldn't find a consensus, so instead injected their own view on how the encyclopedia should be developed (If the close was correct on the first few points, there are no rule to ignore, so bring IAR into this does suggest no real conviction that the close was correct based on the other points). Finally on the matter of WP:AGF perhaps/perhaps not, but DRV isn't dispute resolution, we aren't going to punish someone for not WP:AGF, we are going to be looking at what the correct outcome should be. Though I'd note the comment suggesting potential motivation for the person doing the relisting is certainly heading towards the same territory regarding WP:AGF. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 21:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Response to duffbeerforme:

  1. The summary above by duffbeerforme bears very little resemblance to the actual AfD discussion. His description of the arguments raised in favor of "keep" are at best incomplete and at worst innaccurate. For anyone who is interested in this discussion, take all of the above statements with a grain of salt, and read the AfD yourself, or even better, read the article. The article, in its current form, has 26 cites from a wide variety of sources.
  2. duffbeerforme was the one who began the AfD. It was one of 11 AfDs he initiated during a two-day span, and in 10 out of those 11 AfDs, duffbeerforme made no further contributions to the AfD discussion after submitting the nomination. However, this is the third time in the past two weeks that duffbeerforme has initiated a DRV discussion protesting a decision he did not like. I don't think it is productive for an editor to serially start drive-by AfDs, decline to make meaningful contributions to discussions after initiating them, and then appeal the decision on DRV.
  3. After launching this DRV, duffbeerforme chose to notify only two people: the admin who closed the discussion and the only other editor who had argued strenuously in favor of delete. He declined to notify any of the three editors who had argued to keep the article. I stumbled upon this purely by accident.
  4. There has been much criticism of the WikiProject notability guidelines, with editors suggesting they are somehow unmoored from the general notability guidelines. Those criticizing these guidelines don't seem to have read the WP:RU guidelines closely, in particular the opening section: "In general, a topic is presumed to be notable if it has been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."
Although I've been on Wikipedia for some time, this is the first time I have participated in a DRV discussion, so I apologize if I have misunderstood the process here or how things are supposed to work. Barryjjoyce ( talk) 01:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
1. Anyone commenting on the close should always read the AfD. They would be seriously remiss if they failed to do so. The summary is not just of the AfD but also the closers justification on their talk page. It's not intended as a complete summary, just raising some relevant points.
2. Misleading ADHOM.
3. I notified the closer (as I had to) and the editor that first questioned the close at the closers talk page so was directly involved in the review process. Nothing inappropriate there.
4. That first bit is good and already exists in policies. That does not change the fact that other bits are bad.
Yes, you've missed the purpose. It's to discuss decisions made as a result of deletion discussions, not to have a go at me. duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Trouts all round. Chrislk02, your long explanation above is a keep vote, not a closing statement. Dirtlawyer, don't relist debates you've voted on in the hope of getting more time to change the outcome. Wikiproject Rugby people, wikiprojects don't get to make up their own inclusion rules and expect them to be binding on everyone else- because everyone knows enthusiasts' standards for what's notable and what's not are usually unreasonably lax. As for this debate, it seems the delete side's arguments are stronger and better thought out, but not so much so that it would be an unshakeable consensus. Clsing as no consensus would have been the most appropriate. Reyk YO! 07:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Reyk, I'll keep your trout and throw it on the grill. Chrislk02 (and you) clearly need to read the AfD dialog regarding the relisting: it was not done in the hope of changing the outcome in favor of deletion (the !vote was snarled at 3–3, and I expected a no-consensus outcome). It was done in the spirit of collegiality to give Barry an extra 7 days to pursue additional references that were being discussed in the AfD. Both you and Chris should actually read my AfD comments before you comment further here. Virtually every point raised here was directly addressed in the AfD. Barry was making fine progress by adding new sources at the time of the premature close by Chris, and the AfD should have been simply allowed to play out with Barry's work. Instead, we got a premature close, based on several very bad rationales, and this DRV. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 10:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - I'm not a huge fan of the bastard stepchildren of WP:N, but they are invariably used as either or - Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability might not be a policy, but neither is WP:N - J. Random AfD is not the place to argue this long-standing practice shouldn't occur at all (for an exception to usual practice, perhaps. But to deny the general practice just undermines the position). Similiar, WP:ROUTINE is invoked, but by editor(s) who clearly don't understand it at all. This also substantially undermines the delete position. So, yes, there's a balanced headcount, but the deletion position asserts things about precedent, practice, and policy that are unambiguously false - it's not unreasonable to discount that position as ill-argued and mis-applies policy. It's not a vote, it's a discussion, and !voters who don't familiarise themselves with the situation before arguing can't be taken as seriously. Wily D 09:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Wily, you clearly need to familiarize yourself with the various elements of WP:ROUTINE and the various elaborations of the meaning of "routine coverage" in other related guidelines. Furthermore, no WikiProject has standing to adopt its own notability guidelines for subjects within its scope -- to assert otherwise borders on the fantastic. There are only two applicable guidelines in this AfD: the specific notability guideline for clubs, teams, companies and other organizations per WP:ORG, and the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Neither is "policy," but they are both Wikipedia guidelines, and they are the only permissible bases upon which to determine the notability of a sports team/club. These are the same guidelines we use to determine the notability of NCAA Division I intercollegiate sports teams, NFL football teams, Japanese minor league baseball teams, association football clubs, and NBA basketball teams -- and none of the Wikiprojects for college sports, baseball, American football, association football or basketball have ever attempted to argue their own in-house notability guidelines should apply to clubs/teams/leagues within their scope. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 10:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Jeez, please read and understand WP:ROUTINE before lecturing me. Similarly, both ORG and N say "use your brain and judgement" - it's patently silly for you to assert here that they're "the only permissible bases upon which to determine the notability of a sports team/club". That you have made arguments without bothering to familiarise yourself with the circumstances, policies, precendents, is unfortunate. That you're doubling down, and attacking the other editors around, is not okay. Wily D 08:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Gee whiz, Wily, I'm not attacking you, I'm simply pointing out that you're wrong on several of the points you assert above. You have denigrated the importance of the general notability guidelines per WP:N/WP:GNG and the specific notability guideline for organizations per WP:ORG, saying they're "not policy". For what it's worth, I agree that's true, they're not "policy"; they're guidelines; very little guidance on Wikipedia notability constitutes "policy". You also strongly implied that a WikiProject may adopt its own notability guideline for subjects within its scope. Sorry, one of us is wrong on these points, but it's not me. Without WP:GNG and WP:ORG, we are simply making up our own notability "rules" as we go. I would be curious to hear other "circumstances, policies, precendents" you think are relevant in this discussion; so far, you've been pretty vague on those points.
As for WP:ROUTINE, here's what it says, in relevant part:
"Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. . . . Wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all. Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable."
WP:ROUTINE is an important corollary to the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG, and a sound understanding of significant coverage must consider WP:ROUTINE. Bottom line: a two-paragraph post-game summary of a rugby match in Rugby Today is routine coverage, not significant coverage for purposes of determining the notability of a rugby club team. If we accepted your interpretation, every high school sports team in the United States would be notable and entitled to a stand-alone Wikipedia article based on the routine coverage they regularly receive; that would be an absurd result. And I can tell you, based on my own intimate familiarity with American high school and college sports, that the subject rugby club team of this article receives far, far, far less newspaper coverage than the typical American high school football team.
You say that "it's patently silly" for me to assert that WP:GNG and WP:ORG are "the only permissible bases upon which to determine the notability of a sports team/club". Okay, you're entitled to your opinion, but how about telling the rest of us what you believe are the other permissible bases for determining the notability of a sports team/club? And please be perfectly clear: is it permissible for a WikiProject to adopt its own notability standard for subjects within its scope and expect other editors to accept that as part of an AfD discussion? I unequivocally assert that no WikiProject has that authority, and it appears that several knowledgeable participants in this discussion agree. I think the burden is on you to provide some authority for that assertion. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 13:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn (to no consensus) per User:Reyk. Participants should not relist. The closer's explanation is embarrassing. It would be very difficult to justify deletion given the improvement of the article during the discussion. Give it at least two months and then allow renomination. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Given Barry's progress in adding additional sources, the AfD should have been allowed to run the remaining four days of the relisting. That said, Chris' "keep" rationale is a complete mess, based on a bogus WikiProject in-house notability "guideline" and several other non-factors that should have never been cited (conference membership? former players on the national team? school newspapers are independent coverage? huh?), and because of the bad rationale the close should be overturned to "no consensus". I was not the nominator of this AfD, and I have no intention of filing/relisting the article at AfD because Barry was making progress in adding additional sources, which were actually being discussed at length in the AfD. Instead of an elaboration of what sources are "independent" regarding a college sports team/club, or what constitutes "significant coverage" or what is or is not "routine" in the closing rationale, we got gobbledygook that is contrary to the applicable notability guidelines and years worth of sports team AfD precedents. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 10:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Dirtlawyer, I am not sure if we are in any disagreement? It's not a great article, but I've seen worse kept. And I would like to see Barryjjoyce given a chance. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • No, we really are not in disagreement. It was a bad article with one independent source before Barry started adding references, and before I started describing what an "independent" source is in the context of establishing the notability of a college sports team/club. I am also quite offended by Chris' attempt to mischaracterize my reason for relisting the AfD for another 7 days as an attempt to game the system, and buy more time to rally "delete" votes. That is complete bullshit, and no participant in this discussion should accept that at face value. Here are the relevant excerpts of what was actually said in the AfD:
Barry: "I'll continue to work over the next few days on continuing to find more cites and on replacing existing cites with better cites."
Dirtlayer: "Barry, I appreciate your efforts to improve the article; that's partly how the AfD process is supposed to work. . . ."
Barry: "Thanks for the positive suggestions on how to improve the article. I've added a few more cites, and will continue to add more over the coming days."
Dirtlawyer: "Barry, if you're mining a productive vein of new sources, I would be happy to slap another "relisting" template on the bottom of this AfD to buy you another week -- would that help? If you're being productive in your research, you should have the time to finish. Let me know."
Barry: "I've continued to improve the article since this discussion began 4 weeks ago. It is up to 26 cites now from a variety of sources. Unlike in previous posts, where the article was improving as the discussion progressed, I think the article improvement project is reaching a point of diminishing returns. Hopefully the article is good enough as-is. I don't plan to work on it much further at this point. I hope we can reach consensus, close this discussion, and keep the article."
Dirtlawyer: "Thanks for all your work, Barry. It's obviously a lot closer than it was before you started working on it. I re-listed the debate for another week yesterday, so we should have some breathing space. I'll take a look at your new references in a day or so, and let you know what I think."
It's a really shitty thing for Chris to do, taking a collegial gesture of working together, and then construing it as an attempt on my part to game the system. With a another independent source with significant coverage added by Barry, I might very well have changed my vote for a 4–2 close instead of a 3–3 deadlock and a closing administrator supervote. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 11:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
While I can't say that I would sign off on your precise words, I don't see anything you say that I would choose to disagree with. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse closure; a delete was not a possible outcome. Dirtlawyer1 should not have relisted because (a) it had already been listed twice and (b) he/she was involved. Stifle ( talk) 10:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Stifle: Did you read the rationale for my relisting stated in the AfD? Perhaps you should. "Delete" was not a likely outcome, but neither was "keep" at the time of the relisting. The relisting was done in the spirit of collegiality to give the strongest "keep" proponent another 7 days to add additional sources. That's not a conflict of interest; that's good manners. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 11:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn to no consensus - The closing rationale by a long-time administrator is one of the weakest I have seen in 5+ years of participating in AfDs for sports teams, leagues and athletes. In four more days of the relisting, there may have been a clear basis for "keep," but the closer's rationale seems to be a series of arguments in search of an actual notability guideline. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 11:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Note I want to make it clear that I made no assumption of bad faith on the part of anybody involved in this as @ Dirtlawyer1: has raised as a concern on my talk page. It was included as part of my rationale to explain why I closed it without letting it run through an entire relist period. I think we are all here trying to do our best to contribute to this project in a way that betters it, and we will not always see eye to eye on what that means. That being said, I stand by the assertion that, as a general principle, one who is heavily involved in a discussion should not be one who relists it, regardless of whether they were in support or opposition, and regardless of their motives. Chris lk02 Chris Kreider 13:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
    For someone who has in part justified there closed based on WP:IAR concerning arguments which routinely get dismissed by consensus views, it's somewhat disingenuous to say "regardless of their motives". For me reading your original statement above and your revised view here there is a fair disconnect, it would be better to add a clarification or retraction to your original comment at the point it was made. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 18:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
    The above statement is meant to express the principle as a general. For example, it to me seems highly likely the a potential WP:COI exists when an editor actively involved in an WP:AFD is the editor who relists it (and this sentiment seems echoed by several others above as well). Regardless of motives or position, being so closely involved in the discussion leaves the WP:COI door wide open, and this extends beyond the current AFD under DRV. I added the above note to clarify for a fellow editor (@ Dirtlawyer1: who had expressed it as a concern on my talk page), who had re-listed it to give another editor time to make changes (assumed to be in good faith). It sucks when you go out of your way to try and help someone, and you feel like it gets thrown back in your face, Ive been there before, and that was not, and has never been my goal. In the big picture, I think it is important to strive to be above reproach, and, a more appropriate action that could have achieved the same outcome would have been to leave a note for the reviewing admin saying "Hey, can we have another week to work on this?" In that case, another editor not involved could have come along and made the decision from an objective point of view, closing the WP:COI door, making it a non-issue completely. Hope that clarifies things for you! Chris lk02 Chris Kreider 19:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Endorse. This should probably be no consensus, but in my mind overturning "Keep" to "No Consensus" is timewasting policy wonkery. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 04:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC). reply
  • Overturn that debate was no consensus leaning delete, and the justification by the closing admin above is seriously flawed:
  • This page is not a policy or guideline and should not be used as the justification for an AfD close. Pages like that are potentially helpful rules of thumb and people who rely on them should be given less weight than those who cite policies and guidelines. Even if the Wikiproject guidelines are "based on and explicitly reference Wikipedia's generally applicable notability guidelines" that makes no difference.
  • The fact that the nominator didn't take part in the debate has no relevance to the outcome, and only two editors did (one from each side). "A Keep where somebody cites a specific policy explaining why it is appropriate" should indeed have substantial weight, but there weren't any in this debate.
  • That a debate has been open for three weeks is a good reason to close it but is not a good reason to close it with any particular outcome.
  • The IAR reasons listed are the personal opinions of the closer and would get very little weight if listed in a Keep comment. Very few articles deleted on notability grounds are submitted in bad faith or actively harm the encyclopedia, but that doesn't stop them from being deleted. AfD discussions are not closed by having an objective observer review the debate and decide which side they think is right.
Turning to the debate itself, while the Keep comments themselves didn't cite any policies or guidelines, in the subsequent discussion the argument was made that the sources in the article were enough to satisfy WP:GNG. That argument is more solid and I don't think it can be discounted, so No Consensus is probably the best close. Dirtlawyer1 should not have relisted the discussion as a participant but this didn't affect the outcome. Hut 8.5 05:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC) reply

This may or may not be a bit off-topic, but since there has been much discussion here about the role of WikiProject advice pages guidelines, I'll point out that a number of WikiProjects have created their own notability advice pages guidelines. See [[Category:WikiProject notability essays]]. This includes a number of sports related WikiProjects, such as:

There has been a fair amount of discussion here about how much weight to place on these advice pages guidelines. Is there a consensus on this issue? Barryjjoyce ( talk) 02:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Barry, in terms of AfD discussions for athletes and teams, in-house WikiProject notability "guidelines" have no authority whatsoever. If an individual WikiProject wants to provide additional guidance to its members, that's between the WikiProject and its members. Conversely, I am aware of several WikiProjects that have tougher notability standards than those that are applicable Wikipedia-wide; there is a serious question whether that, too, is permissible. I am an active member of three of the four WikiProjects you listed above, and I regularly participate in AfDs withing the scope of the fourth; I cannot recall in any AfD in the last five years where anyone successfully cited to an "in-house" WikiProject guideline as authority for keeping an article that would otherwise have been deleted. That said, WikiProjects seem to have a fair amount of latitude in determining what articles should be combined into larger articles or lists; e.g., WikiProject College Football routinely combines non-championship seasons into decade articles; WikiProject Baseball routinely combines marginally notable minor league players into lists grouped by MLB franchise minor league systems. Remember: satisfying GNG (or any other specific notability standard) only raises a presumption of inclusion; it may be that covering the topic as part of a larger article or list is determined to be a better approach for a variety of reasons. I will also note that WP:NSPORTS incorporates sport-specific notability guidelines for athletes in something like two dozen different sports (including both forms of rugby). To the best of my knowledge, there are no formally adopted specific notability guidelines for teams in different sports; all teams -- professional, semi-pro, major league, minor league, American college (and otherwise), amateur, etc. -- must satisfy the specific notability guideline of WP:ORG and/or the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG. In practical application, WP:GNG and WP:ORG are nearly identical in terms of what they require, but ORG is somewhat more specific for organizations. Essays, whether their topic is notability or something else, only have such authority as individual editors ascribe to them, which means if the essay's logic appeals to you, feel free to cite it, but remember no one is required to accept it. In my opinion, where your in-house "guideline," Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability, runs into trouble is in defining classes of "notable" teams without any reference to WP:GNG or WP:ORG; given that disconnect, it is inevitable that articles for college and amateur rugby teams are going to run into trouble at AfD. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 03:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I'd disagree that wikiprojects have guidelines in so far as guidelines have a specific meaning on Wikipedia - Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines lays out how things become "real" guidelines and it certainly isn't merley a wikiproject setting up a page and declaring it a guideline. Taking into account that (a) any one can setup a wikiproject on any subject they want any time they want and (b) wikiproject can have either direct or indirect overlaps with each other and (c) under any wikiproject anyone can at any time setup a page about notability and (d) wikiprojects by nature indicate they will be frequented by people interested in that area. Do you then think there would be a community consensus that such details on notability which may or may not yet be written, under such a project which may or may not yet exist, would some how be considered to automatically have broad community support? -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 07:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Reply to 86.2.216.5 comment on 07:29, 9 May 2015: Thank you, I found your concise response helpful. In my question I had misused the word "guideline"; I should have said "advice pages", so I have corrected my poor choice of words above. Following up on your other points, do you think that different amount of weight should be placed on notability advice pages from different WikiProjects? For example, would it be your position that the notability advice page from the now inactive Arena Football League WikiProject would be given no weight, but that the notability advice page from the very active WP:FOOTY WikiProject would be given some weight? If yes, how much weight? If no, why not. Barryjjoyce ( talk) 15:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply
I think I might have just answered my own question. The following text appears on several WikiProject notability pages. I have added it to the WikiProject rugby union notability page, which should be helpful in any future rugby AfD discussions.
"This advice is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, and it may not provide valid criteria for an AfD nomination. However, it may be consulted for assistance during an AfD discussion or when considering creating a standalone article. The degree of consensus that went into creating this essay (a potential measurement of the reliability of the advice) can be judged by consulting the history and talk pages." Barryjjoyce ( talk) 16:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply
I'll answer nevertheless, it's possible that one essay enjoys more support than some other, but I don't think it makes much difference. In reality it either enjoys broad community support or it doesn't, if it's believe it's the former then someone should do the leg work to get it promoted to be a guideline, if no one has done that, then it's perhaps not an unreasonable view to take that it doesn't. Regarding the template on some of these, again I would be careful of what that means. Any essay can be referred to in a deletion discussion, in and of itself it doesn't give it any weight, it's much more a shorthand for an argument rather than expanding it in full each time, if the opinion is at odds with guidelines and policies it doesn't create any sort of requirement that it should be followed. I'd note it got listed for deletion at some point, and although it was kept there seems to be a strong suggestion it's not worded very well - though not really fixed since then. As to how much the sentiment on that template reflects community view is I guess debatable also, it says things like projects being encouraged to come up with their own notability essays, it doesn't say who is encouraging this or why. The history of the template and it's talk page seem distinctly lacking in terms of contribution or discussion. For the example I gave it was changed here with an edit summary of tighten - where it used to say "WikiProjects are encouraged to write essays on notability that meet or exceed the expectations of notability..." quite how removing that additional wording is "tightening" I don't know and seems to have been done with no discussion. Don't get me wrong I have no problem with such essays and such templates, but they don't override the actual underlying policies and guidelines. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 17:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and reclose by another admin Any admin that cites IAR as a reason to ignore guidelines simply doesn't get how AFD works and then to count votes rather then assess arguments.... Tsk tsk. An example of how not to do it and invalidates any discretion we should offer the closer. Spartaz Humbug! 15:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Relist The article is sufficiently changed since the beginning of the afd that a new discussion would be helpful. I personally doubt the team is notable. For many years there have been contradictions of various sorts between our general guidelines and our guidelines for sports, and there has never been a firm conclusion over which supersedes the other--whether the sports guidelines if more restrictive do or not apply if the GNG is met; or whether the sports guidelines if less restrictive apply, regardless of whether or not the GNG is met. Our statement of these have varied considerably over the 8 years I;ve been here. (My own view, fwiw, is that the potential over-coverage of sports is so great, that whatever guideline is them ore restrictive should apply, except for earlier Olympic athletes,), This is especially the case for the minor sports, and most especially those sports which are major in some countries but not in others, as applied to athletes in the countries where they are not major sports--I think the danger of overcoverage in the places where they are minor is so great that I would be quite restrictive). But this is only my own personal view, and almost any other position on them is quite defensible. Idon;t think the closing is an outright error, though I would have probably closed non-consensus. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • @ DGG: Your point, DGG, is a good one -- whether the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG trump specific notability guidelines such as WP:NSPORTS, or vice versa -- but that's not really the key question in this AfD. In fact, for the sports in whose related AfDs I regularly participate -- American football, basketball, baseball, college football, college basketball -- it's pretty well settled that it's an "and/or" situation, that is, satisfying either GNG or NSPORTS is sufficient evidence of notability. What we have here, however, is a cat of a different stripe. WikiProject Rugby Union has written its own "guideline" regarding the notability of rugby teams and leagues, including semi-pro, amateur, and college club teams, and the WikiProject has not sought any form of Wikipedia-wide sanction for its in-house "guidelines" from "the entire community," as required by Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. There is already a specific notability guideline for sports leagues, teams and clubs -- it's WP:ORG. In fact, WP:NSPORTS, the specific notability guideline for sports subjects expressly states "It is not intended that [WP:NSPORTS] should apply to sports clubs and teams; for these the specific notability guideline is WP:ORG." That's pretty darn clear. So, the issue here is whether WikiProject Rugby Union may adopt its own "guideline" -- the "guideline" cited by the closing administrator -- without consultation with the wider community, and in contravention of WP:ORG, and then expect the wider community to accept it. So, what do you think? Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 06:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • In all my years of participating here I've rarely seen a clearer case for a "no consensus" outcome. DRV has consistently refused to enforce specific notability guidelines such as NSPORTS where they conflict with the GNG, and there is absolutely no question that in cases of doubt the GNG should always prevail.— S Marshall T/ C 11:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC) reply
DelRev has consistently endorsed some special notability guidelines--politicians, PROF, Geographic features, and even some Common Outcomes. The sports guideline has distinctively been the special guideline most disputed. The GNG itself states it does not apply in all situations. What is undoubtedly the case is that all special guidelines of any sort need to be accepted by the wider community, and cannot be assumed to be all automatically valid.
S Marshall, do you mean that in your opinion a sports person or team is notable only if it meets both the general and special guideline, or that they are notable if and only if they meet the GNG alone.? DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The SNGs that we've most consistently declined to enforce include PORNBIO and martial arts-related ones. I'm not aware of any cases where we've enforced a SNG where the GNG wasn't met—ever. We have turned to SNGs for clarification and supporting arguments on occasion and I think that's what a SNG is for. They're ancillary to the GNG. I think that with any article, including biographies of sportspeople, they're notable if and only if they meet the GNG. It's the single, solitary, necessary and sufficient, condition for notability.— S Marshall T/ C 18:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I agree with S Marshall's observation, that the sub notability guidelines are consistently considered to be subservient to the GNG, but with the exceptions of WP:PROF and WP:CORP, both of which were respected guidelines before WP:N. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • There is also NGEO, probably the most widely used alternative guideline of them all. And I thing POLITICIAN and ENTERTAINER--and even ANYBIO. The current reading of WP:BIO under the heading of "additional standards" is "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. " Additional means standards other then GNG. And NSPORTS says explicitly,"'The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below."' Note the "OR". OR does not mean AND. (despite all this, I agree that NSPORTS is a guideline under constant dispute, and I would not assume that any part of it actually has general consensus) DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I would not associate POLITICIAN ENTERTAINER ANYBIO or NSPORTS with anything like the credibility/respectability associated with PROF, when it comes to relaxing the general standard. The fine text of the dubious subguidelines carries little weight if the topic fails the GNG. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn to no-consensus First off, this was one of the 1st AFD closes I made in over 4 years (the last one I can find before a pretty significant period of inactivity was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marchan-dising), and it seems that alot has changed since then. Secondly, as the closing administrator, this long draw out DRV was not my intention, I was hoping to put an end to a long running AFD that would never be a clear delete, although it seems to have sparked some heated discussion on WP:NOTABILITY. Finally, I think the idea that WP:GNG provides the base criteria for generic inclusion, and sub-groups provide the criteria that the WP:GNG criteria must meet is a good approach (and one mirrored in many real world domains such as academia). For example, an article on a school that was up for deletion had "...the school had difficulty finding qualified German teachers, so the possibility that the school would have to cancel its German classes existed added to it, citing it as independent external coverage. I brought up the argument that it sounded more like the minutes from a PTA meeting, not an encyclopedic article. Not all coverage indicates notability, that needs to be accepted, we need to use a little common sense along with WP:GNG, and it should be up to specific areas of focus to determine what that "common sense" should be to determine if coverage is notable. Chris lk02 Chris Kreider 12:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • It sounds like a standard WP:Supervote. Your input sounds quite considered and substantial, but amounts to a !vote, not a close. Can I suggest that you revert your close, !vote instead, and then leave it for someone else to close? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:06, 13 May 2015 (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/2015_May_6&oldid=1136459964"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE