John Papas ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

Article was recreated in mainspace by an administrator ( Paulmcdonald) without significant improvement, in an effort to keep a low-quality, underused navbox from being deleted. I placed a CSD G4 tag on the article, and it was removed by Jweiss11 with no explanation in the edit summary. On the talk page, Jweiss stated they contested the speedy deletion of the article because "the subject is clearly notable". The administrator who recreated the article had previously !voted "keep" in the AfD, and I believe they have now abused the deletion process. The article has had three references added since recreation, none of which I believe put it over the GNG threshold. Eagles  24/7  (C) 20:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC) reply

I don't see any abuse of the deletion process here by Paulmcdonald or me. The article was AfD'd 9 years ago when its title was misspelled, which may have contributed to difficulty in locating sources. Our general ability to locate sources is now also much improved given increased access to Newspapers.com. The subject of the article has been covered substantially by The Boston Globe and ESPN. There's a myriad of coverage about him on Newspapers.com. Eagles247, I think your approach here is unduly bureaucratic and has not served the improvement of the encyclopedia. Jweiss11 ( talk) 20:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• So, the consensus at DRV is that old deletion discussions expire over time. There's no specific consensus about how much time, but by custom and practice, it's certainly a lot less than nine years. This means that the 2011 deletion discussion can't be enforced. However, there's absolutely nothing to stop you AfDing it, and if I were you, I would.— S Marshall  T/ C 21:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • My reading of this historical customs is that DRV consensus is very strong for up to six months, and much weakened as old after two years. That is of course very rough, give more weight to the actual closing statement. A SNOW close with “completely unacceptable” endures longer than when a decision is required with limited participation. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• The AfD is too old and unclear. Use AfD. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Send to AFD - It is not clear whether this is an appeal of the denial of G4 or an appeal of the 9-year-old AFD or a complaint of administrative error or abuse. The denial of the G4 was reasonable. It isn't worth reviewing the old AFD. I don't see a case of administrative error or abuse. The subject does not appear to satisfy gridiron football notability, but that is determined by an AFD. I agree with User:SmokeyJoe. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Check the spelling of his name. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• There was also a more recent AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Pappas (2nd nomination), which was closed just over a week ago. For now, I have created John Pappas as a redirect to the current spelling of the title, and if anyone thinks that the article should be moved to the spelling "John Pappas", then they may start a requested move discussion on the article's talk page. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 14:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I think that was to an actor with a similar name... ??-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 18:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply
    • The recent AfD was indeed about an actor. I've just nominated that redirect at RfD, since there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the Mr Papas here spells his name with two Ps, and given the presence of the actor (albeit no longer with an article on Wikipedia) the redirect is potentially confusing. YorkshireLad   ✿   ^(talk) 09:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Thank you, User:GeoffreyT2000 - It certainly isn't worth having a move discussion when the redirect is in place AND the article will go to AFD soon. The two spellings should be mentioned in the AFD for the information of !voters and the closer. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• I have no objection to going through AFD, it's a time-tested process that has been used to make Wikipedia better. I got busy at my job in the process of working with these articles so I asked for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Mount Ida coaches in case I missed something. Looks like I did miss a few procedure points and I do apologize, but it was accidental. I'm unsure why my status as a Wikipedia Admin is even mentioned. In any event, if any users believe that I or anyone else have violated a policy then go through the steps at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution or whatever other steps or measures they see fit according to policies and guidelines.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 18:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - new article has sources not discussed in the original AfD (since they were published well after), so G4 doesn't apply. Person who removed the G4 tag wasn't the creator and was right to do so, so I don't see an issue there. If someone is convinced that it should be deleted they're free to use AfD, but I don't see any need for AfD to pre-emptively send it. Wily D 07:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Use AfD I too think that AfD nomination would be worthwhile. Tessaracter ( talk) 14:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Send to AfD I agree with SmokeyJoe and Robert McClenon. We can evaluate the article and get a clear consensus there. Lightburst ( talk) 01:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Garrett relation ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Criticism is in my opinion largely unfounded, the research is a decade old, many outside sources exist (c.f. replies on deleter's talk pages) and the purpose is not self-promotion but the understanding of one of the important relationships of our shared reality. Gordonschuecker ( talk) 13:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure how to properly link additional discussions, but here are the two links:

Discussion on Nosebagbear (closing admin's) Talk Page

and

2nd talk section on Nosebagbear's TP

P.S.: Something seems to have gone wrong? The Garrett Relation articles I wanted to link to are:

Garret relation article (temp undeleted) and

Garrett relation AfD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordonschuecker ( talk • contribs)

• Just an initial note that I've tried to fix links for submitter. I have also temporarily undeleted for the duration of the deletion review. Please feel free to revert if you don't want them, and my apology if so Nosebagbear ( talk)
• Firstly, my apology to @ Gordonschuecker: - I replied to their first post on my TP, but while I saw their second I got distracted at that point and purely forgot to return to it - mea culpa. Moving to the request. I'm happy that my original decision was right (not that Gordonschuecker appears to really be contesting that), so I suppose this is a discussion as to whether the additional sources noted, especially in the second section on my TP, warrant recreation (or at least draftification). I don't really have a strong opinion on that at this point, but I will take a further look. Nosebagbear ( talk) 13:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• So, welcome to Wikipedia! It's nice to have another scholar on board. We hope you like the place and decide to stay. That articles for deletion discussion must have been an incredibly offputting and unwelcoming experience for a new user, and I want to begin by apologizing for my fellow editors' word choices. There are much better ways to say what they said in that discussion.
  Wikipedia might superficially look like an encyclopaedia, but the process of writing it is basically a colossal, sprawling, unfocused argument, spread across millions of pages. We have some great ways to shut down people who aren't here in good faith. We don't have such good ways to decide between the views of editors who are in good faith, and this means that content disputes can last forever. The science of climate change is one of the biggest ongoing content disputes, and if you'd like to edit on the outskirts of that topic area, we should make you aware of this page. I know it's very long.
  May I suggest making some edits relating to some other field of human knowledge, just for a little while, in order to build a bit of familiarity with how this place works and how and why we make decisions here, and then coming back to the matter of the Garrett relation with that under your belt? We could drop a copy of the article in draft space in the meantime?— S Marshall  T/ C 18:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC) reply

If we're asking Gordon to build up some experience elsewhere, adding it to their userspace might be better than draftifying (initially) Nosebagbear ( talk) 20:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the deletion, and allow userfication. See User:Robert McClenon/Garrett relation. My conclusion is that the appellant is probably a student of Timothy Garrett. We probably should have an article on Timothy Garrett. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC) reply

I am no student of Timothy Garrett, but I am a fan of his work, alerted him once I saw that "his" Garrett relation got removed and that I inteded to see if I could personally help to get the page reinstated/edited as I'm regularly refering to it. I'm researching on similar topics than him and he now also follows me on Twitter so I technically now kind of do know him though. Gordonschuecker ( talk) 00:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment - To summarize the essay, the theory of the Garrett relation probably deserves more academic attention than it has received, but that would be secondary coverage, and it is not the job of Wikipedia to provide secondary coverage. The article has been entirely the work of three single-purpose accounts, one of whom is Garrett, and the other two are probably students of Garrett. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC) reply

May I ask if you have read the two discussions I linked in my original post? There is already plenty of secondary coverage, the topic is 10 years old and many have build upon his work (see proposed direct links in the links discussed). Gordonschuecker ( talk) 00:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the deletion, as the discussion said, very few of the sources then cited in the article were independent Most were by Garrett (the inventor of the concept) or by Nolthenius who seems to be closely associated. Mo significant discussion by other scholars was cited -- perhaps it is out there, but no one cited it in the AfD or the article. No objection to draftification or userfication, while a search is on for better and more sources. No harm in preserving the history, and a completely new draft would of course be OK. Just be aware of the need for independent sources. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 23:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC) reply

See reply to the comment above. If allowed, I would be happy to help with draftification or userfication, though if I understand correctly, I need to build experience elsewhere before I'm allowed to because the post is linked to climate change? Gordonschuecker ( talk) 00:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC) reply