Luis Perez (football) – Endorse, but allow recreation. There's broad agreement that the original AfD close was fine (hence, endorse), but given the new sources presented here, the previous decision to delete shouldn't prevent recreation. There's no consensus here on whether the new sources do indeed establish notability, just that they're good enough to have this looked at again. I'm going to
restore this to draft space, where the new sources can be worked into the article and moved back into mainspace whenever somebody feels it's ready for that. If anybody still feels it doesn't meet
WP:N, they can bring it back to
WP:AfD. – --
RoySmith(talk)02:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Endorse as the perfect example of why the sports specific guideline works much better than the GNG. None of this coverage meets the standards of NCOLLATH, which contains a section on sourcing that is a significantly stringer requirement than the GNG. The only sources here that come close to meeting it are primary, and thus excluded by
WP:N. In short: if a subject doesn't meet the sourcing requirements their SNG says to look for, we should also assume it doesn't meet the GNG. Also, my standard complaint about DRV not being AfD 2.0 and asking us to reassses sourcing less than a year after the original discussion not being an appropriate use of deletion review when there was a strong consensus in the original discussion. If you think you have enough sourcing to write an article that passes G4, you don't need permission.
TonyBallioni (
talk)
19:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Endorse mostly per TonyBallioni: If sourcing has changed, ask for the article back to improve it, and then make your notability improvements through the new sourcing to assure that G4 doesn't apply, but realize that anyone can AfD it if they disagree that notability criteria are met.
Jclemens (
talk)
04:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Overturn, undelete, allow re-nomination after a week or two. I'm seeing in
WikiOriginal-9's proffered list of sources are large number of new sources that appear to be from quality reporting, and including serious
secondary source content, far too much for me to quickly agree that the sources are all primary sources.
"Texas A&M-Commerce's Luis Perez is the most interesting man in DII football" Sep 7, 2017, for example, is not easily rejected. These new sources are sufficient to demand a fresh run through AfD. Give
WikiOriginal-9 at least a week to work them in, and then allow anyone to renominate at AfD. I see no reason why this should go through draftspace. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
06:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)reply
@
TonyBallioni and
Jclemens: I went to close this, but as I read both of your comments, I'm not sure what you're advocating. On the one hand, you both say endorse, but on the other hand, it sounds like you're arguing to restore the article, which doesn't sound like endorse to me. Could you both clarify your points of view? Thanks. --
RoySmith(talk)13:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)reply
I'd be fine with restoring to user space to let them work on it before submitting to main space. My endorse was making the point that a deletion review is not needed to recreate the article, and that it shouldn't be used as a way to G4 or AfD-proof the article, especially when it's likely it'll be deleted again anyway. The Holly Neher deletion review and subsequent 2nd AfD were a mess, and I think show the reason why deletion reviews should stay away from making judgement calls as to whether sourcing has changed on relatively recently deleted articles. If the claim is that the subject's notability has changed to the point where an uninvolved admin won't G4 the article, then there is no need for a deletion review to review the sourcing, just ask for userfication from any admin and restore to main space to let the article be judged by a much more diverse crowd than shows up here. My suggested close would be a simple "endorse" and let the OP know that they can ask for it to be userfied.
TonyBallioni (
talk)
14:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Endorse means the February deletion discussion was fine. DRV is not to reargue an AfD in light of new sourcing, only that the sourcing in the AfD was considered poorly by the closing admin. DRV is not appropriate when the sourcing has changed, in general, but it doesn't mean we can't say both "the AfD was correct at the time" and "Sure, go ahead and recreate it".
Jclemens (
talk)
01:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Luis Perez (football) – Endorse, but allow recreation. There's broad agreement that the original AfD close was fine (hence, endorse), but given the new sources presented here, the previous decision to delete shouldn't prevent recreation. There's no consensus here on whether the new sources do indeed establish notability, just that they're good enough to have this looked at again. I'm going to
restore this to draft space, where the new sources can be worked into the article and moved back into mainspace whenever somebody feels it's ready for that. If anybody still feels it doesn't meet
WP:N, they can bring it back to
WP:AfD. – --
RoySmith(talk)02:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Endorse as the perfect example of why the sports specific guideline works much better than the GNG. None of this coverage meets the standards of NCOLLATH, which contains a section on sourcing that is a significantly stringer requirement than the GNG. The only sources here that come close to meeting it are primary, and thus excluded by
WP:N. In short: if a subject doesn't meet the sourcing requirements their SNG says to look for, we should also assume it doesn't meet the GNG. Also, my standard complaint about DRV not being AfD 2.0 and asking us to reassses sourcing less than a year after the original discussion not being an appropriate use of deletion review when there was a strong consensus in the original discussion. If you think you have enough sourcing to write an article that passes G4, you don't need permission.
TonyBallioni (
talk)
19:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Endorse mostly per TonyBallioni: If sourcing has changed, ask for the article back to improve it, and then make your notability improvements through the new sourcing to assure that G4 doesn't apply, but realize that anyone can AfD it if they disagree that notability criteria are met.
Jclemens (
talk)
04:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Overturn, undelete, allow re-nomination after a week or two. I'm seeing in
WikiOriginal-9's proffered list of sources are large number of new sources that appear to be from quality reporting, and including serious
secondary source content, far too much for me to quickly agree that the sources are all primary sources.
"Texas A&M-Commerce's Luis Perez is the most interesting man in DII football" Sep 7, 2017, for example, is not easily rejected. These new sources are sufficient to demand a fresh run through AfD. Give
WikiOriginal-9 at least a week to work them in, and then allow anyone to renominate at AfD. I see no reason why this should go through draftspace. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
06:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)reply
@
TonyBallioni and
Jclemens: I went to close this, but as I read both of your comments, I'm not sure what you're advocating. On the one hand, you both say endorse, but on the other hand, it sounds like you're arguing to restore the article, which doesn't sound like endorse to me. Could you both clarify your points of view? Thanks. --
RoySmith(talk)13:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)reply
I'd be fine with restoring to user space to let them work on it before submitting to main space. My endorse was making the point that a deletion review is not needed to recreate the article, and that it shouldn't be used as a way to G4 or AfD-proof the article, especially when it's likely it'll be deleted again anyway. The Holly Neher deletion review and subsequent 2nd AfD were a mess, and I think show the reason why deletion reviews should stay away from making judgement calls as to whether sourcing has changed on relatively recently deleted articles. If the claim is that the subject's notability has changed to the point where an uninvolved admin won't G4 the article, then there is no need for a deletion review to review the sourcing, just ask for userfication from any admin and restore to main space to let the article be judged by a much more diverse crowd than shows up here. My suggested close would be a simple "endorse" and let the OP know that they can ask for it to be userfied.
TonyBallioni (
talk)
14:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Endorse means the February deletion discussion was fine. DRV is not to reargue an AfD in light of new sourcing, only that the sourcing in the AfD was considered poorly by the closing admin. DRV is not appropriate when the sourcing has changed, in general, but it doesn't mean we can't say both "the AfD was correct at the time" and "Sure, go ahead and recreate it".
Jclemens (
talk)
01:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.