Mohammad Ilyas (cricketer, born 1996) – No Consensus. Which is greater, the number of runs scored in a typical test match, or the number of times we've debated GNG vs SNG?
it's hard to tell. In any case, this DRV is really just a relitigation of the GNG-vs-SNG arguments from the AfD, and while the "Overturn to Delete" arguments have numerical superiority, I can't discern that there's any clear consensus to do so. --
RoySmith(talk) 14:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Overturn the keep arguments are certainly weak in that they are a vague wave at an SNG and do not address the concerns of the delete arguments. Despite what looks like a tight numerical count; NOTAVOTE should have led to the delete arguments having been given more weight. FWIW, the proper outcome might have been redirecting to a list article, but that was not mentioned by any of the participants. The issue about NCRIC and editors not following notability policies is however not something that DRV can resolve; and even an RfC at NSPORTS doesn't seem to be getting decisive approval for a change. Cheers,
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs) 19:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn to delete. I !voted in this AfD and participated in the discussion on the closer's talk page. From the closer's later rationale, it doesn't seem they were aware/accept that NSPORT is superseded by GNG, per the NSPORT guideline itself.
JoelleJay (
talk) 21:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Refer to RfC the unclear consensus that in the case of conflict between
WP:NCRIC and
WP:GNG, the WP:GNG trumps. Endorse the close of
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Ilyas (cricketer, born 1996) in the meantime, but noting the inconsistency in result with the other three linked AfDs. Overruling one AfD on the basis of three others smacks of vote counting, it will be much better to establish the rule with an RfC. Alternatively, if this AfD is simply an outlier, follow the advice at
WP:RENOM, but I strongly recommend the RfC route, it will record the precedent much better.
On the more general issue of conflict between an SNG and GNG, having watched and engaged for 15 years, I note that consistently the GNG is found to trump SNGs, except for
WP:PROF. If you want to address the question of SNGs vs GNGs, carve WP:PROF out of the argument. For all the non-PROF SNGs, we have seen a great many of them wound back or even merged, and nearly but not all have become explicitly subservient to the GNG.
Wikipedia:Notability (sports), including NCRIC, is currently drawing attention as a holdout.
Another caveat is that the GNG does not mean deletion if there is a viable merge target. Whenever a cricketer is judged non-notable, consider whether they can be listed in their team article. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 01:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn (to delete). I am convinced by replies that NSPORTS defers to the GNG, and so arguments at XfD citing the SNG over the GNG should have been discounted. My requested RfC happened in 2017. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 04:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Noting the late run of "endorse" !votes at the end, clearly it is not clear consensus that not meeting the GNG irregardless of meeting the SNG means "delete". If this ends as "no consensus", then another RfC is needed. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 23:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)reply
If there were clear universally accepted consensus on the issue we would not have ended up here. I do not think I have a demonstratable track record or closing discussions against consensus.--
Ymblanter (
talk) 05:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Reply thread to original struck post below:
NSPORTS as written already says that it is a rule of thumb used to help determine if something meets GNG. Therefore that's already the existing consensus. This closure is obviously inconsistent with our policies on deletion (where GNG is the rule much more often than not). Essentially every single keep vote (besides one) was unambiguously "passes NCRIC" without regards to anything else. As for redirecting, while I already said that's the likely correct outcome, that would have been a SUPERVOTE because nobody mentioned it in the discussion.
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs) 04:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Reading the lede of
Wikipedia:Notability (sports), This guideline is used to help evaluate whether ... is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia., you appear to be correct. NSPORTS in its lede sentence defers to the GNG for the decision. Does the closer
User:Ymblanter read it that way? Is the converse implied? Does not meeting the GNG mean that NSPORTS say it does not merit an article. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 04:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
SmokeyJoe, FWIW there was a
well-attended RfC where the closing statement included: There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion. Since then NPROF has been affirmed as being in its own non-GNG-based class, but NSPORT has remained subordinate according to its own guidelines (The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. and
Q5: The second sentence in the guideline says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Does this mean that the general notability guideline doesn't have to be met? A5: No; as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met.
And please consider
this ongoing discussion on whether NSPORT/particular subguidelines need to be reconfigured so that they are better predictors of GNG -- that the SNG is a rebuttable presumption of meeting GNG, but does not override it, is already assumed by almost all the participants. Also, it wasn't just those three AfDs where the outcome hinged on NSPORT v GNG -- it's been every single one in at least the last two weeks (except a pair closed specifically due to a very common misinterpretation of NSPORT's wording). That's thirteen well-discussed AfDs with !votes split between keep (based on NSPORT) and delete/redirect that were closed as delete or redirect by 8 admins and 1 non-admin, with 9 of the closes explicitly stating NSPORT is not sufficient and/or that GNG must be met.
Closing arguments from all recent NSPORT v GNG split-!vote AfDs
The result was delete. Consideration of this discussion was almost perfectly balanced in terms of numerical consideration. Moving to consideration of policy, two major disputes occur: the traditional NSPORTS/NCRIC vs GNG one, and the belief that there must be sources in other languages and it should be kept on those grounds.
Meeting an NSPORTS criterion does not remove the need to pass GNG when challenged, as multiple editors pointed out. Those arguing that NCRIC was met did not generally also argue that GNG was met.
Beyond that, at least 2 Keep !voters felt that it should be kept as there were likely (or almost certainly) were sources in other languages. However, this was not made with firm evidence, such as giving a source we just don't have access to check. An article could not indefinitely be kept on these grounds - though if you gain access please get in touch with me.
Factoring these in, the policy-backed consensus reaches the level of delete, rather than no-consensus.
The result was delete. This is a fairly standard NCRIC vs GNG dispute. As NSPORTS specifically requires GNG to also be met, and there isn't a clear IAR exemption case made here, and there is a very clear consensus that GNG is not met, deletion is the appropriate outcome.
The result was delete. I'm sorry but the keep votes here don't even begin to discuss sources which might indicate GNG whilst the delete votes have a clear assessment of avaliable sources. Whilst the votes themselves might not indicate a clear consensus, it is the job of the closing admin to assess the strength of arguments presented and the keep votes are neither grounded in any guideline nor do they even begin to rebut the delete arguments presented.
The result was delete. While there is some consensus that he satisfies the SNG those suggesting that the SNG was met have not provided any sources exist and there is a consensus that he does not pass the GNG. As WP:NSPORT says meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. and so in this case there is a consensus to delete.
The result was delete. Inclusion requires that WP:GNG is met, which requires WP:SIGCOV (significant coverage) from multiple, reliable sources. This means coverage that is more than trivial and mentions more than stats. Whether it is cricket, football, underwater basket weaving, whatever, it doesn't matter. That is the core of what is required to pass the first test for inclusion for any article, regardless of what any other guidelines on notability says, simply because they all derive their authority FROM WP:GNG. Through this lens, weighing the !vote not on their numbers as much as on the strength of their policy based rationale, I see a consensus to delete.
The result was redirect to Federally Administered Tribal Areas cricket team. The "keep" !votes argue that this person meets NCRIC. However, that is only a guideline designed to be a shortcut to identify persons that are likely notable according to GNG. Once notability is challenged, however, NCRIC is not enough and it has to be established whether or not the subject meets GNG. The argument that he's still young and likely to garner more coverage is turning things upside down, we do not keep articles if we think someone might one day become notable (see WP:CRYSTAL), we create articles if the subject can be shown to be notable now.
The result was delete. The "keep" !votes argue that this person meets NCRIC. However, that is only a guideline designed to be a shortcut to identify persons that are likely to pass GNG. Once notability is challenged, however, NCRIC is not enough and it has to be established whether or not the subject actually meets GNG.
The result was delete. Whether or not the subject passes NCRIC becomes moot when notability is challenged. SNGs serve as shortcuts to determine which subjects are likely to pass GNG, but once challenged, sources have to show that GNG actually is met.
The result was delete. While there is a large amount of discussion, it does not indicate that substantial quantities of reference material are available about this individual. This result should not be considered prejudicial against recreation should such material be in fact located in the future.
Agree with Ymblanter. To be fair, all the similar cases should be on the table.
User:Swarm also closed similar AfDs as delete. User:Swarm, did you overlook the lede paragraph of WP:NPORTS, which gives deference to the GNG, and does this mean that "meets the SNG" !votes should be discounted as the GNG is being discussed? --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 06:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
We probably both, Swarm and I, have the same motivation. If everything is such black and white as described above,
WP:NSPORTS must have been deprecated as redundant (because if the subject passes GNG, it is irrelevant what NSPORT says, and if the subject does not pass GNG it is irrelevant either). However, NSPORT is not deprecated, it is alive and well. I intetrpret it in the way that NSPORTS indicates that the subject is likely to be notable, and search for reliable sources must be throroughly done before deleting the article. Therefore, voting keep per NSPORTS is valid, and 50% voting per NPSPORTS means there is no consensus to delete the article. It just means that people believe that sources are out there, just nobody cared to thoroughly look for them. If I understand my opponents correctly, their reading of the policy is that at the time of AfD the compliance with GMG has not been demonstrated (read multiple GNG-compliant links have not been added to the article), it must be a delete outcome does not matter what. I do not think this is a correct reading of our policies.--
Ymblanter (
talk) 07:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
This introduces the logical fallacy that just because a SNG ultimately requires GNG to be met, that the SNG is somehow irrelevant or deprecated as redundant. This isn't true: SNGs provide guidance for editors on what topics should be notable. The guidance at
WP:NSPORTS clearly shows the SNG is tied very very closely to the GNG. This isn't unique to NSPORT - for instance, everything at
WP:AUTHOR, though it doesn't specifically mention sources, makes clear that anyone passing the SNG should have GNG sources available. The "voting per NSPORTS" argument doesn't respect the fact that in order to properly AfD an article, the subject must not pass GNG, and a source search which looks to improve the article also doesn't bring up any GNG-qualifying coverage. The article doesn't need to pass GNG, but the subject does. Simply voting that the SNG is met - especially when other voters say GNG hasn't been met, when those voters have actually exhibited effort in making that determination, and when there's no additional comments to the "meets the SNG" (specifically, specific places where sources which may be able to improve the article might exist) - makes absolutely no determination regarding notability, and if respected, will leave us with a bunch of articles that we can neither improve to ever meet GNG nor delete, only because a particular walled garden likes to have the article around.
SportingFlyerT·C 09:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Yep, I agree all the similar AfDs should be considered, and I did reference those 2 (except a pair closed specifically due to a very common misinterpretation of NSPORT's wording). The deletion rationale on their talk page basically boils down to NSPORT's second sentence having an "or", which is a frequent enough misinterpretation that it has its own FAQ (Q5, which I quoted above). I guess that brings the tally to 3/16 recent AfDs? Although that doesn't include the 100+ NCRIC-meeting players who have been uncontroversially redirected to lists in the last few months.
JoelleJay (
talk) 07:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Endorse as (well) within discretion. We are invited to overturn a no consensus close, where the discussion clearly showed no consensus, on grounds that some (many) of the !votes should have been discounted. To have discounted these !votes would have been contrary to best practice. Why so?
WP:Notability and
WP:Notability (sports) are guidelines. They are not policies as wrongly claimed above. It is arguments contrary to policies that should be discounted. The difference between policies and guidelines (they really are different) is explained at
Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines (itself a policy) and the instructions for closing AfD discussions at
WP:CLOSEAFD says Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. and also eventually links to a guideline
WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS which says Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Are the delete !votes not stronger? Well, maybe, but that depends a lot on the meaning in
WP:NSPORTS of The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below We are advised above that those adopting its naturally expressed meaning should have had their !votes discounted in favour of an interpretation based on FAQ #5.I don't find that convincing.
Thincat (
talk) 14:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
It's not really relevant, but I do want to note the sentence you quote from
WP:NSPORT has nothing to do with notability, but rather sourcing.
SportingFlyerT·C 19:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
I note your opinion (and thank you for reading mine).
Thincat (
talk) 07:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)reply
@
SportingFlyer: I'm actually confused by the claim. Are you saying that the advice given there is that it's okay to only include sources that meet the SNG and not the GNG? And why is such a direction given in an SNG to begin with? I just don't find it plausible that the sentence is there simply as writing advice and think it much more likely it is there to provide direction about sourcing needed for inclusion. Is there some history here of this that indicates your reading is correct?
Hobit (
talk) 16:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Q5: The second sentence in the guideline says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Does this mean that the general notability guideline doesn't have to be met? A5: No; as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. This sentence is just emphasizing that the article must always cite reliable sources to support a claim of meeting Wikipedia's notability standards, whether it is the criteria set by the sports-specific notability guidelines, or the general notability guideline.
; that interpretation was supported by
this discussion in May 2017. A month later, the 2017 RfC referenced above closed with clear consensus reaffirming that NSPORT does not supersede GNG.
JoelleJay (
talk) 16:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Hobit: Yes, that's exactly what I think it says. What should be clear from
WP:NSPORTS is that any sportsperson must ultimately meet the GNG. Any sports SNG should be tailored to the GNG, i.e. meeting the SNG should positively predict that the GNG is met. So, when you're creating an article on a sportsperson, all you have to do source-wise is show the SNG is met. However, just meeting the SNG doesn't prevent the article from being discussed for deletion. It depends on the sport though. For instance,
WP:NBASE is tailored to major league baseball players - you should almost always be able to find GNG-calibre sources for those players. If I create an article on a new major leaguer with just a
WP:V source showing they played in the majors, that's lazy, but that's okay. The reason why there's so many cricketers at the moment is because
WP:NCRIC is not tailored to the GNG, so there's lots of players who technically meet the SNG but don't meet GNG (the way I like to think of it is that we can't write any sort of encyclopaedic article about them beyond what's listed in statistical databases.) It's also why I believe many of the endorses here aren't technically correct, since they ignore the relationship between the sports SNG and the GNG, seeming to prefer a broader view of "SNG or GNG" when in reality SNGs are quite complicated and have many topic-specific nuances. In the sports world, that means articles must if challenged pass GNG.
SportingFlyerT·C 18:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn to delete - per the 2017 RFC and the language of NSPORTS, all of the "keep meets NCRIC" votes should have been discounted.
Levivichharass/hound 15:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn to delete - Levivich says it all, I have nothing to add. --
Randykitty (
talk) 15:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
We've allowed an article to exist, when that article doesn't have two independent reliable sources, and that's always problematic. In this case there's one reliable source, and we can't publish anything that isn't reliably sourced, so we've literally taken someone else's website, converted it from a table into prose, and published it as Wikipedia content. And the website that we've ripped off is copyrighted. If this DRV doesn't reaching consensus to overturn to delete, then we should refer it to the copyright team to be purged of all the infringing revisions. Which is all of them.—
S MarshallT/
C 16:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
+1000. Our NOR policy (rightly) prohibits our adding any creative or original content to our articles. When we summarize multiple sources, we are creating a new work that we license CC-BY-SA. But when we copy information from just one copyrighted website onto our website, even if we paraphrase it, we are still just copying someone else's copyrighted work without adding anything original or new (without combining it with anything from any other source). And worse, we're purporting to relicense that copied work CC-BY-SA, which we have no right to do. This is why every article must have two sources in order to be legal. This is why GNG. In my humble opinion.
Levivichharass/hound 16:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
I completely agree with
Levivich.
WP:N, and Wikipedia-notability in general, derives from
WP:NOR, specifically
WP:PSTS, as an extreme case. Without any secondary sources, there can be no WP:NOR-complaint prose content. I believe that all these single-team cricketers should be merged to a list section of the article on their team. Lists are the suitable place to record database information provided by the single reliable database source. As were some of the closes, I think they should all have been closed as "Redirect, noting the policy
WP:ATD-R. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 05:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)reply
As an aside to whether or not the article meets English Wikipedia's standards of having an article: facts are not copyrightable. Taking someone's vital stats and putting them into an article isn't a copyright violation. Regarding adding something original or combining info from another source, neither of those would resolve a copyright issue: they both create derivative works, and adding info from another source just adds another potential source of copyright infringement.
isaacl (
talk) 22:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)reply
It is, and has been since first creation, a
WP:CLOP of a copyrighted source. Remember Rlevse?—
S MarshallT/
C 09:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn to delete It's well within an admin's discretion to discount vague hand waves at policy general, and I wish more would be proactive in doing so (<---general comment). The SNG subservience to GNG needs to be iterated and reiterated until it becomes the norm, not relitigated until everyone gets bored of the argument. In this case, since the SNG already acknowledges this relationship, the discounting of !votes which ignored that would have been painless.
——Serial 16:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn to delete - There's been a pretty good consensus establish that NCRIC does not overrule a GNG failure. Thus, the arguments that the article should be kept due to marginal NCRIC pass cannot compete with the arguments that GNG is not met - especially when the only source put forward in the AFD was determined to not be relevant.
Hog FarmTalk 19:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
endorse the !vote was split and I think claims of consensus about the SNG vs. GNG are overstated.
Hobit (
talk) 23:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Endorse. Decision reflects the consensus of the debate. Suggesting GNG must be met as well as SNG is a nonsense as it would make SNGs otiose. From the lead of
WP:NSPORTS:
The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. ... Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (for example, the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines).
It is abundantly clear from the use of "or" and "other ways" that meeting an NSPORTS guideline is itself sufficient to show notability. The nominator here is continually using DRVs to get their misinterpretation of guidelines applied, whereas they should instead be seeking a consensus to change the guideline (which I would support; personally, as a deletionist, I would prefer to delete all of these tiny cricket articles, but the policy and guidelines currently in effect do not allow for it).
Stifle (
talk) 10:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn and relist - While I appreciate that the closer was put in a difficult position, since there were two opposed factions making policy-based arguments and two relistings had not brought the opposing factions any closer, I do think this was a bad call: there is enough evidence and discussion for the admin to decide which arguments were. I do not agree with the 'bivalent' view that says (i) that the
WP:GNG on the one hand and the various SNGs on the other have sharp criteria that unambiguously allow the meet/fall-short decision to be resolved by pure application of the rules to the policy-relevant facts about the topic and (ii) the GNG with perhaps one or two exceptions trumps SNGs, with the consequence that (iii) if GNG considerations were raised and not answered, the SNG-based opinions should be discounted. Instead if there is a conflict between GNG-based arguments and the SNG-based arguments, it is up to the closing admin to act as referee and weigh up the strength of the arguments, a task of judgement we cannot fully capture in sharp-line rules.
I personally, if I were an admin, would have closed this as delete. The reason there is talk of certain SNGs being trumped by GNG is that they lead us to include vast numbers of articles whose informative value is about that which a program could assemble if the RS content was put in Wikidata and most editors don't think the maintenance burden of the encyclopedia should be spread thinly over such feeble content. The closer should have borne this in mind. However, (i) I don't think policy determines a delete close to this AfD, and (ii) it has been suggested here on DRV that perhaps some content is worth salvaging. Therefore I think it would be better to relist to see if either of these directions are taken up in the AfD. In the event that the relisted AfD sees no activity, then I recommend the new closing admin deletes. —
Charles Stewart(talk) 12:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Endorse the fact that coverage meeting the GNG hasn't been found doesn't mean that SNG-based arguments are worthless. From
WP:N: an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. It isn't unreasonable to argue that passing an SNG means that GNG-passing coverage is likely to exist. That is what the SNGs are supposed to do, after all. An AfD can certainly decide that GNG-passing coverage isn't likely to exist for a topic, but this one didn't. A comment which says "Fails
WP:GNG" in an AfD often means "I, a monoglot English speaker, Googled the subject and didn't find much". Given that the subject is Pakistani it's distinctly possible that any available sources will not be in English, for example. I don't see any evidence that anyone tried to look for any. Hut 8.5 12:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Given the subject of the article is no longer active, the likelihood that sources or editors with the relevant language competence will appear that justify inclusion are low and getting lower. If we delete and enough good sources appear that an article is clearly justified, then it's a shame that a little bit of work of past editors has probably been wasted and perhaps there are active editors who suffer the demotivation of having an article deleted, but the existing article is of poor quality and recreation is not so onerous, so it would be no great tragedy. In the meantime, the encyclopedia suffers the burden of much poor quality sportscruft while the population of skilled editors to police it is declining. I really think the best place for speculation about keep arguments that were in fact not made in the AfD would be in a relisted AfD. —
Charles Stewart(talk) 12:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)reply
I have to object to the idea that this article is somehow harmful to the encyclopedia. Yes it's very short, and will probably stay that way, but there's nothing inherently objectionable about it. We can have a discussion about exactly which obscure professional cricketers we have articles on, but there's nothing unencyclopedic about having articles on obscure professional cricketers. The exact reasoning I've used above may not be in the AfD itself but it is part of the reason we have SNGs and use them. Hut 8.5 19:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Endorse, as per above I'm not convinced that GNG supersedes SNG, and don't agree on principle.--
Ortizesp (
talk) 15:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)reply
There was no consensus. No Consensus is a valid close when there is no consensus. The closer might have discounted one or the other set of arguments, but had no obligation to do so.
There was therefore no error by the closer.
I have the possibly minority view that GNG and SNG should be complementary, and that GNG should not be used to ignore positive SNG.
A conflict between SNG and GNG should permit discretion by the closer as to what the consensus is.
General notability is often awkwardly vague, which is one reason why we also have special notability guidelines.
Robert McClenon, the Cricket project has been attempting to rework their criteria to be better predictors of GNG -- that NCRIC is so poor at this is why there have been hundreds of cricketer articles deleted in the last couple months. Most of these are deleted/redirected despite meeting NCRIC because the consensus (as reflected in NSPORT's language, and by majority practice at AfD, and in the close of the 2017 NSPORT RfC There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline) is that meeting GNG is ultimately required. Current NSPORT criteria and the ongoing NCRIC RfC proposal operate under the explicit intent of predicting when GNG will be met: this is so an article doesn't have to be sourced to three SIGCOV refs from the get-go, it just has to have RS verifying the topic meets the SNG and thus is likely to have BASIC SIGCOV. But since the whole premise of NSPORT is to be a placeholder for GNG, if a topic's BEFORE search does not find SIGCOV then NSPORT's prediction has failed for that topic and it is no longer presumed notable.
JoelleJay (
talk) 03:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Endorse it is not for the closer to assess whether an article is or is not notable, nor what that means in terms of SNG and/or GNG. It is the job of the closer to asses the consensus of those commenting in the discussion and there none in this discussion (neither side's arguments were so clearly erronious that they should be discounted) so the "no consensus" closure was the correct one.
Thryduulf (
talk) 13:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn to delete. As a disclaimer, I think that the keep !voters should not be discounted due to a differing opinion on the scope of NCRIC - even if it really is at variance with the text of NCRIC, that would just mean that the !voters think that NCRIC should be modified to explicitly override a need for meeting GNG. That said,
WP:BLP is a core non-negotiable policy. If a deletion debate on a living figure of marginal notability is borderline, we should generally defer to deletion. As others have noted, the !delete camp has had very strong arguments, so I'd want to see a higher standard met to merit a no consensus or keep close - one that doesn't apply to this case.
SnowFire (
talk) 04:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Endorse there is no other way the discussion could have been closed and arguing that another article exists that isn’t notable is a case of
WP:WAX.--
67.70.101.238 (
talk) 16:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Speedy close/Endorse as there is no valid rationale here - what you would have voted is not a valid rationale for DRV (and your !vote would also be
WP:NOTINHERITED/
WP:OSE). Additionally, there is absolutely no way a reasonable closer would have done anything but deleted this.
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs) 19:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Endorse- the closure was obviously valid, and we don't relist AfDs just to give editors a second bite at the apple. A SNOW close may be in order here.
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 23:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Endorse. Correct close. One more "Keep because it's by a famous author" !vote would not have made a difference, as "it's by a famous author" would be rejected as crossing
WP:NOTINHERITED. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 04:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Endorse - This DRV is just a relitigation of an AFD that had a clear consensus that this content was not appropriate for a stand-alone article. The DRV nomination does not argue that an error in judgment or procedure occurred. There's nothing to see/do here.
Hog FarmTalk 04:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Endorse Well-attended near-unanimous delete consensus; the DRV does not allege a mistake being made anywhere in the process.
SportingFlyerT·C 20:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Speedy endorse. Deletion review is a venue to address issues of failure to follow deletion process. It is not for the making or re-making of arguments that could have been or were made at the AFD.
Stifle (
talk) 10:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Endorse as the majority of 'keep' arguments were
WP:ATADD, and speedy close per WP:TIMEWASTING.
——Serial 10:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Endorse - While I think
WP:NOTINHERITED is often misinterpreted at AfD, this is a clear example of its correct application to see that the most promising-looking RSes do not support notability. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is, as noted several times above, a bad argument: at DRV we try to get deletion practice on course one AfD at a time; as a volunteer encyclopedia we cannot make a radical commitment to consistent application of policy. —
Charles Stewart(talk) 12:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Sadly Endorse. I honestly suspect the sourcing is out there, it's just hard to find. But until that's proven we've reached the right outcome. I feel like there must be reviews of this poem in "the literature" at least in sources that cover children's lit.
Hobit (
talk) 19:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Endorse:
Several editors have said to Speedy Endorse, but do we have a criterion for speedy endorse?
If not, the close was the correct close for the AFD.
We do have the option to speedy-close a listing that "has no prospect of success"; see
WP:DELREVD towards the end.
Stifle (
talk) 14:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Mohammad Ilyas (cricketer, born 1996) – No Consensus. Which is greater, the number of runs scored in a typical test match, or the number of times we've debated GNG vs SNG?
it's hard to tell. In any case, this DRV is really just a relitigation of the GNG-vs-SNG arguments from the AfD, and while the "Overturn to Delete" arguments have numerical superiority, I can't discern that there's any clear consensus to do so. --
RoySmith(talk) 14:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Overturn the keep arguments are certainly weak in that they are a vague wave at an SNG and do not address the concerns of the delete arguments. Despite what looks like a tight numerical count; NOTAVOTE should have led to the delete arguments having been given more weight. FWIW, the proper outcome might have been redirecting to a list article, but that was not mentioned by any of the participants. The issue about NCRIC and editors not following notability policies is however not something that DRV can resolve; and even an RfC at NSPORTS doesn't seem to be getting decisive approval for a change. Cheers,
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs) 19:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn to delete. I !voted in this AfD and participated in the discussion on the closer's talk page. From the closer's later rationale, it doesn't seem they were aware/accept that NSPORT is superseded by GNG, per the NSPORT guideline itself.
JoelleJay (
talk) 21:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Refer to RfC the unclear consensus that in the case of conflict between
WP:NCRIC and
WP:GNG, the WP:GNG trumps. Endorse the close of
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Ilyas (cricketer, born 1996) in the meantime, but noting the inconsistency in result with the other three linked AfDs. Overruling one AfD on the basis of three others smacks of vote counting, it will be much better to establish the rule with an RfC. Alternatively, if this AfD is simply an outlier, follow the advice at
WP:RENOM, but I strongly recommend the RfC route, it will record the precedent much better.
On the more general issue of conflict between an SNG and GNG, having watched and engaged for 15 years, I note that consistently the GNG is found to trump SNGs, except for
WP:PROF. If you want to address the question of SNGs vs GNGs, carve WP:PROF out of the argument. For all the non-PROF SNGs, we have seen a great many of them wound back or even merged, and nearly but not all have become explicitly subservient to the GNG.
Wikipedia:Notability (sports), including NCRIC, is currently drawing attention as a holdout.
Another caveat is that the GNG does not mean deletion if there is a viable merge target. Whenever a cricketer is judged non-notable, consider whether they can be listed in their team article. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 01:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn (to delete). I am convinced by replies that NSPORTS defers to the GNG, and so arguments at XfD citing the SNG over the GNG should have been discounted. My requested RfC happened in 2017. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 04:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Noting the late run of "endorse" !votes at the end, clearly it is not clear consensus that not meeting the GNG irregardless of meeting the SNG means "delete". If this ends as "no consensus", then another RfC is needed. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 23:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)reply
If there were clear universally accepted consensus on the issue we would not have ended up here. I do not think I have a demonstratable track record or closing discussions against consensus.--
Ymblanter (
talk) 05:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Reply thread to original struck post below:
NSPORTS as written already says that it is a rule of thumb used to help determine if something meets GNG. Therefore that's already the existing consensus. This closure is obviously inconsistent with our policies on deletion (where GNG is the rule much more often than not). Essentially every single keep vote (besides one) was unambiguously "passes NCRIC" without regards to anything else. As for redirecting, while I already said that's the likely correct outcome, that would have been a SUPERVOTE because nobody mentioned it in the discussion.
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs) 04:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Reading the lede of
Wikipedia:Notability (sports), This guideline is used to help evaluate whether ... is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia., you appear to be correct. NSPORTS in its lede sentence defers to the GNG for the decision. Does the closer
User:Ymblanter read it that way? Is the converse implied? Does not meeting the GNG mean that NSPORTS say it does not merit an article. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 04:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
SmokeyJoe, FWIW there was a
well-attended RfC where the closing statement included: There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion. Since then NPROF has been affirmed as being in its own non-GNG-based class, but NSPORT has remained subordinate according to its own guidelines (The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. and
Q5: The second sentence in the guideline says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Does this mean that the general notability guideline doesn't have to be met? A5: No; as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met.
And please consider
this ongoing discussion on whether NSPORT/particular subguidelines need to be reconfigured so that they are better predictors of GNG -- that the SNG is a rebuttable presumption of meeting GNG, but does not override it, is already assumed by almost all the participants. Also, it wasn't just those three AfDs where the outcome hinged on NSPORT v GNG -- it's been every single one in at least the last two weeks (except a pair closed specifically due to a very common misinterpretation of NSPORT's wording). That's thirteen well-discussed AfDs with !votes split between keep (based on NSPORT) and delete/redirect that were closed as delete or redirect by 8 admins and 1 non-admin, with 9 of the closes explicitly stating NSPORT is not sufficient and/or that GNG must be met.
Closing arguments from all recent NSPORT v GNG split-!vote AfDs
The result was delete. Consideration of this discussion was almost perfectly balanced in terms of numerical consideration. Moving to consideration of policy, two major disputes occur: the traditional NSPORTS/NCRIC vs GNG one, and the belief that there must be sources in other languages and it should be kept on those grounds.
Meeting an NSPORTS criterion does not remove the need to pass GNG when challenged, as multiple editors pointed out. Those arguing that NCRIC was met did not generally also argue that GNG was met.
Beyond that, at least 2 Keep !voters felt that it should be kept as there were likely (or almost certainly) were sources in other languages. However, this was not made with firm evidence, such as giving a source we just don't have access to check. An article could not indefinitely be kept on these grounds - though if you gain access please get in touch with me.
Factoring these in, the policy-backed consensus reaches the level of delete, rather than no-consensus.
The result was delete. This is a fairly standard NCRIC vs GNG dispute. As NSPORTS specifically requires GNG to also be met, and there isn't a clear IAR exemption case made here, and there is a very clear consensus that GNG is not met, deletion is the appropriate outcome.
The result was delete. I'm sorry but the keep votes here don't even begin to discuss sources which might indicate GNG whilst the delete votes have a clear assessment of avaliable sources. Whilst the votes themselves might not indicate a clear consensus, it is the job of the closing admin to assess the strength of arguments presented and the keep votes are neither grounded in any guideline nor do they even begin to rebut the delete arguments presented.
The result was delete. While there is some consensus that he satisfies the SNG those suggesting that the SNG was met have not provided any sources exist and there is a consensus that he does not pass the GNG. As WP:NSPORT says meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. and so in this case there is a consensus to delete.
The result was delete. Inclusion requires that WP:GNG is met, which requires WP:SIGCOV (significant coverage) from multiple, reliable sources. This means coverage that is more than trivial and mentions more than stats. Whether it is cricket, football, underwater basket weaving, whatever, it doesn't matter. That is the core of what is required to pass the first test for inclusion for any article, regardless of what any other guidelines on notability says, simply because they all derive their authority FROM WP:GNG. Through this lens, weighing the !vote not on their numbers as much as on the strength of their policy based rationale, I see a consensus to delete.
The result was redirect to Federally Administered Tribal Areas cricket team. The "keep" !votes argue that this person meets NCRIC. However, that is only a guideline designed to be a shortcut to identify persons that are likely notable according to GNG. Once notability is challenged, however, NCRIC is not enough and it has to be established whether or not the subject meets GNG. The argument that he's still young and likely to garner more coverage is turning things upside down, we do not keep articles if we think someone might one day become notable (see WP:CRYSTAL), we create articles if the subject can be shown to be notable now.
The result was delete. The "keep" !votes argue that this person meets NCRIC. However, that is only a guideline designed to be a shortcut to identify persons that are likely to pass GNG. Once notability is challenged, however, NCRIC is not enough and it has to be established whether or not the subject actually meets GNG.
The result was delete. Whether or not the subject passes NCRIC becomes moot when notability is challenged. SNGs serve as shortcuts to determine which subjects are likely to pass GNG, but once challenged, sources have to show that GNG actually is met.
The result was delete. While there is a large amount of discussion, it does not indicate that substantial quantities of reference material are available about this individual. This result should not be considered prejudicial against recreation should such material be in fact located in the future.
Agree with Ymblanter. To be fair, all the similar cases should be on the table.
User:Swarm also closed similar AfDs as delete. User:Swarm, did you overlook the lede paragraph of WP:NPORTS, which gives deference to the GNG, and does this mean that "meets the SNG" !votes should be discounted as the GNG is being discussed? --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 06:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
We probably both, Swarm and I, have the same motivation. If everything is such black and white as described above,
WP:NSPORTS must have been deprecated as redundant (because if the subject passes GNG, it is irrelevant what NSPORT says, and if the subject does not pass GNG it is irrelevant either). However, NSPORT is not deprecated, it is alive and well. I intetrpret it in the way that NSPORTS indicates that the subject is likely to be notable, and search for reliable sources must be throroughly done before deleting the article. Therefore, voting keep per NSPORTS is valid, and 50% voting per NPSPORTS means there is no consensus to delete the article. It just means that people believe that sources are out there, just nobody cared to thoroughly look for them. If I understand my opponents correctly, their reading of the policy is that at the time of AfD the compliance with GMG has not been demonstrated (read multiple GNG-compliant links have not been added to the article), it must be a delete outcome does not matter what. I do not think this is a correct reading of our policies.--
Ymblanter (
talk) 07:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
This introduces the logical fallacy that just because a SNG ultimately requires GNG to be met, that the SNG is somehow irrelevant or deprecated as redundant. This isn't true: SNGs provide guidance for editors on what topics should be notable. The guidance at
WP:NSPORTS clearly shows the SNG is tied very very closely to the GNG. This isn't unique to NSPORT - for instance, everything at
WP:AUTHOR, though it doesn't specifically mention sources, makes clear that anyone passing the SNG should have GNG sources available. The "voting per NSPORTS" argument doesn't respect the fact that in order to properly AfD an article, the subject must not pass GNG, and a source search which looks to improve the article also doesn't bring up any GNG-qualifying coverage. The article doesn't need to pass GNG, but the subject does. Simply voting that the SNG is met - especially when other voters say GNG hasn't been met, when those voters have actually exhibited effort in making that determination, and when there's no additional comments to the "meets the SNG" (specifically, specific places where sources which may be able to improve the article might exist) - makes absolutely no determination regarding notability, and if respected, will leave us with a bunch of articles that we can neither improve to ever meet GNG nor delete, only because a particular walled garden likes to have the article around.
SportingFlyerT·C 09:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Yep, I agree all the similar AfDs should be considered, and I did reference those 2 (except a pair closed specifically due to a very common misinterpretation of NSPORT's wording). The deletion rationale on their talk page basically boils down to NSPORT's second sentence having an "or", which is a frequent enough misinterpretation that it has its own FAQ (Q5, which I quoted above). I guess that brings the tally to 3/16 recent AfDs? Although that doesn't include the 100+ NCRIC-meeting players who have been uncontroversially redirected to lists in the last few months.
JoelleJay (
talk) 07:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Endorse as (well) within discretion. We are invited to overturn a no consensus close, where the discussion clearly showed no consensus, on grounds that some (many) of the !votes should have been discounted. To have discounted these !votes would have been contrary to best practice. Why so?
WP:Notability and
WP:Notability (sports) are guidelines. They are not policies as wrongly claimed above. It is arguments contrary to policies that should be discounted. The difference between policies and guidelines (they really are different) is explained at
Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines (itself a policy) and the instructions for closing AfD discussions at
WP:CLOSEAFD says Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. and also eventually links to a guideline
WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS which says Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Are the delete !votes not stronger? Well, maybe, but that depends a lot on the meaning in
WP:NSPORTS of The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below We are advised above that those adopting its naturally expressed meaning should have had their !votes discounted in favour of an interpretation based on FAQ #5.I don't find that convincing.
Thincat (
talk) 14:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
It's not really relevant, but I do want to note the sentence you quote from
WP:NSPORT has nothing to do with notability, but rather sourcing.
SportingFlyerT·C 19:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
I note your opinion (and thank you for reading mine).
Thincat (
talk) 07:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)reply
@
SportingFlyer: I'm actually confused by the claim. Are you saying that the advice given there is that it's okay to only include sources that meet the SNG and not the GNG? And why is such a direction given in an SNG to begin with? I just don't find it plausible that the sentence is there simply as writing advice and think it much more likely it is there to provide direction about sourcing needed for inclusion. Is there some history here of this that indicates your reading is correct?
Hobit (
talk) 16:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Q5: The second sentence in the guideline says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Does this mean that the general notability guideline doesn't have to be met? A5: No; as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. This sentence is just emphasizing that the article must always cite reliable sources to support a claim of meeting Wikipedia's notability standards, whether it is the criteria set by the sports-specific notability guidelines, or the general notability guideline.
; that interpretation was supported by
this discussion in May 2017. A month later, the 2017 RfC referenced above closed with clear consensus reaffirming that NSPORT does not supersede GNG.
JoelleJay (
talk) 16:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Hobit: Yes, that's exactly what I think it says. What should be clear from
WP:NSPORTS is that any sportsperson must ultimately meet the GNG. Any sports SNG should be tailored to the GNG, i.e. meeting the SNG should positively predict that the GNG is met. So, when you're creating an article on a sportsperson, all you have to do source-wise is show the SNG is met. However, just meeting the SNG doesn't prevent the article from being discussed for deletion. It depends on the sport though. For instance,
WP:NBASE is tailored to major league baseball players - you should almost always be able to find GNG-calibre sources for those players. If I create an article on a new major leaguer with just a
WP:V source showing they played in the majors, that's lazy, but that's okay. The reason why there's so many cricketers at the moment is because
WP:NCRIC is not tailored to the GNG, so there's lots of players who technically meet the SNG but don't meet GNG (the way I like to think of it is that we can't write any sort of encyclopaedic article about them beyond what's listed in statistical databases.) It's also why I believe many of the endorses here aren't technically correct, since they ignore the relationship between the sports SNG and the GNG, seeming to prefer a broader view of "SNG or GNG" when in reality SNGs are quite complicated and have many topic-specific nuances. In the sports world, that means articles must if challenged pass GNG.
SportingFlyerT·C 18:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn to delete - per the 2017 RFC and the language of NSPORTS, all of the "keep meets NCRIC" votes should have been discounted.
Levivichharass/hound 15:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn to delete - Levivich says it all, I have nothing to add. --
Randykitty (
talk) 15:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
We've allowed an article to exist, when that article doesn't have two independent reliable sources, and that's always problematic. In this case there's one reliable source, and we can't publish anything that isn't reliably sourced, so we've literally taken someone else's website, converted it from a table into prose, and published it as Wikipedia content. And the website that we've ripped off is copyrighted. If this DRV doesn't reaching consensus to overturn to delete, then we should refer it to the copyright team to be purged of all the infringing revisions. Which is all of them.—
S MarshallT/
C 16:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
+1000. Our NOR policy (rightly) prohibits our adding any creative or original content to our articles. When we summarize multiple sources, we are creating a new work that we license CC-BY-SA. But when we copy information from just one copyrighted website onto our website, even if we paraphrase it, we are still just copying someone else's copyrighted work without adding anything original or new (without combining it with anything from any other source). And worse, we're purporting to relicense that copied work CC-BY-SA, which we have no right to do. This is why every article must have two sources in order to be legal. This is why GNG. In my humble opinion.
Levivichharass/hound 16:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
I completely agree with
Levivich.
WP:N, and Wikipedia-notability in general, derives from
WP:NOR, specifically
WP:PSTS, as an extreme case. Without any secondary sources, there can be no WP:NOR-complaint prose content. I believe that all these single-team cricketers should be merged to a list section of the article on their team. Lists are the suitable place to record database information provided by the single reliable database source. As were some of the closes, I think they should all have been closed as "Redirect, noting the policy
WP:ATD-R. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 05:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)reply
As an aside to whether or not the article meets English Wikipedia's standards of having an article: facts are not copyrightable. Taking someone's vital stats and putting them into an article isn't a copyright violation. Regarding adding something original or combining info from another source, neither of those would resolve a copyright issue: they both create derivative works, and adding info from another source just adds another potential source of copyright infringement.
isaacl (
talk) 22:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)reply
It is, and has been since first creation, a
WP:CLOP of a copyrighted source. Remember Rlevse?—
S MarshallT/
C 09:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn to delete It's well within an admin's discretion to discount vague hand waves at policy general, and I wish more would be proactive in doing so (<---general comment). The SNG subservience to GNG needs to be iterated and reiterated until it becomes the norm, not relitigated until everyone gets bored of the argument. In this case, since the SNG already acknowledges this relationship, the discounting of !votes which ignored that would have been painless.
——Serial 16:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn to delete - There's been a pretty good consensus establish that NCRIC does not overrule a GNG failure. Thus, the arguments that the article should be kept due to marginal NCRIC pass cannot compete with the arguments that GNG is not met - especially when the only source put forward in the AFD was determined to not be relevant.
Hog FarmTalk 19:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
endorse the !vote was split and I think claims of consensus about the SNG vs. GNG are overstated.
Hobit (
talk) 23:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Endorse. Decision reflects the consensus of the debate. Suggesting GNG must be met as well as SNG is a nonsense as it would make SNGs otiose. From the lead of
WP:NSPORTS:
The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. ... Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (for example, the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines).
It is abundantly clear from the use of "or" and "other ways" that meeting an NSPORTS guideline is itself sufficient to show notability. The nominator here is continually using DRVs to get their misinterpretation of guidelines applied, whereas they should instead be seeking a consensus to change the guideline (which I would support; personally, as a deletionist, I would prefer to delete all of these tiny cricket articles, but the policy and guidelines currently in effect do not allow for it).
Stifle (
talk) 10:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn and relist - While I appreciate that the closer was put in a difficult position, since there were two opposed factions making policy-based arguments and two relistings had not brought the opposing factions any closer, I do think this was a bad call: there is enough evidence and discussion for the admin to decide which arguments were. I do not agree with the 'bivalent' view that says (i) that the
WP:GNG on the one hand and the various SNGs on the other have sharp criteria that unambiguously allow the meet/fall-short decision to be resolved by pure application of the rules to the policy-relevant facts about the topic and (ii) the GNG with perhaps one or two exceptions trumps SNGs, with the consequence that (iii) if GNG considerations were raised and not answered, the SNG-based opinions should be discounted. Instead if there is a conflict between GNG-based arguments and the SNG-based arguments, it is up to the closing admin to act as referee and weigh up the strength of the arguments, a task of judgement we cannot fully capture in sharp-line rules.
I personally, if I were an admin, would have closed this as delete. The reason there is talk of certain SNGs being trumped by GNG is that they lead us to include vast numbers of articles whose informative value is about that which a program could assemble if the RS content was put in Wikidata and most editors don't think the maintenance burden of the encyclopedia should be spread thinly over such feeble content. The closer should have borne this in mind. However, (i) I don't think policy determines a delete close to this AfD, and (ii) it has been suggested here on DRV that perhaps some content is worth salvaging. Therefore I think it would be better to relist to see if either of these directions are taken up in the AfD. In the event that the relisted AfD sees no activity, then I recommend the new closing admin deletes. —
Charles Stewart(talk) 12:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Endorse the fact that coverage meeting the GNG hasn't been found doesn't mean that SNG-based arguments are worthless. From
WP:N: an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. It isn't unreasonable to argue that passing an SNG means that GNG-passing coverage is likely to exist. That is what the SNGs are supposed to do, after all. An AfD can certainly decide that GNG-passing coverage isn't likely to exist for a topic, but this one didn't. A comment which says "Fails
WP:GNG" in an AfD often means "I, a monoglot English speaker, Googled the subject and didn't find much". Given that the subject is Pakistani it's distinctly possible that any available sources will not be in English, for example. I don't see any evidence that anyone tried to look for any. Hut 8.5 12:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Given the subject of the article is no longer active, the likelihood that sources or editors with the relevant language competence will appear that justify inclusion are low and getting lower. If we delete and enough good sources appear that an article is clearly justified, then it's a shame that a little bit of work of past editors has probably been wasted and perhaps there are active editors who suffer the demotivation of having an article deleted, but the existing article is of poor quality and recreation is not so onerous, so it would be no great tragedy. In the meantime, the encyclopedia suffers the burden of much poor quality sportscruft while the population of skilled editors to police it is declining. I really think the best place for speculation about keep arguments that were in fact not made in the AfD would be in a relisted AfD. —
Charles Stewart(talk) 12:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)reply
I have to object to the idea that this article is somehow harmful to the encyclopedia. Yes it's very short, and will probably stay that way, but there's nothing inherently objectionable about it. We can have a discussion about exactly which obscure professional cricketers we have articles on, but there's nothing unencyclopedic about having articles on obscure professional cricketers. The exact reasoning I've used above may not be in the AfD itself but it is part of the reason we have SNGs and use them. Hut 8.5 19:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Endorse, as per above I'm not convinced that GNG supersedes SNG, and don't agree on principle.--
Ortizesp (
talk) 15:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)reply
There was no consensus. No Consensus is a valid close when there is no consensus. The closer might have discounted one or the other set of arguments, but had no obligation to do so.
There was therefore no error by the closer.
I have the possibly minority view that GNG and SNG should be complementary, and that GNG should not be used to ignore positive SNG.
A conflict between SNG and GNG should permit discretion by the closer as to what the consensus is.
General notability is often awkwardly vague, which is one reason why we also have special notability guidelines.
Robert McClenon, the Cricket project has been attempting to rework their criteria to be better predictors of GNG -- that NCRIC is so poor at this is why there have been hundreds of cricketer articles deleted in the last couple months. Most of these are deleted/redirected despite meeting NCRIC because the consensus (as reflected in NSPORT's language, and by majority practice at AfD, and in the close of the 2017 NSPORT RfC There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline) is that meeting GNG is ultimately required. Current NSPORT criteria and the ongoing NCRIC RfC proposal operate under the explicit intent of predicting when GNG will be met: this is so an article doesn't have to be sourced to three SIGCOV refs from the get-go, it just has to have RS verifying the topic meets the SNG and thus is likely to have BASIC SIGCOV. But since the whole premise of NSPORT is to be a placeholder for GNG, if a topic's BEFORE search does not find SIGCOV then NSPORT's prediction has failed for that topic and it is no longer presumed notable.
JoelleJay (
talk) 03:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Endorse it is not for the closer to assess whether an article is or is not notable, nor what that means in terms of SNG and/or GNG. It is the job of the closer to asses the consensus of those commenting in the discussion and there none in this discussion (neither side's arguments were so clearly erronious that they should be discounted) so the "no consensus" closure was the correct one.
Thryduulf (
talk) 13:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn to delete. As a disclaimer, I think that the keep !voters should not be discounted due to a differing opinion on the scope of NCRIC - even if it really is at variance with the text of NCRIC, that would just mean that the !voters think that NCRIC should be modified to explicitly override a need for meeting GNG. That said,
WP:BLP is a core non-negotiable policy. If a deletion debate on a living figure of marginal notability is borderline, we should generally defer to deletion. As others have noted, the !delete camp has had very strong arguments, so I'd want to see a higher standard met to merit a no consensus or keep close - one that doesn't apply to this case.
SnowFire (
talk) 04:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Endorse there is no other way the discussion could have been closed and arguing that another article exists that isn’t notable is a case of
WP:WAX.--
67.70.101.238 (
talk) 16:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Speedy close/Endorse as there is no valid rationale here - what you would have voted is not a valid rationale for DRV (and your !vote would also be
WP:NOTINHERITED/
WP:OSE). Additionally, there is absolutely no way a reasonable closer would have done anything but deleted this.
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs) 19:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Endorse- the closure was obviously valid, and we don't relist AfDs just to give editors a second bite at the apple. A SNOW close may be in order here.
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 23:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Endorse. Correct close. One more "Keep because it's by a famous author" !vote would not have made a difference, as "it's by a famous author" would be rejected as crossing
WP:NOTINHERITED. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 04:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Endorse - This DRV is just a relitigation of an AFD that had a clear consensus that this content was not appropriate for a stand-alone article. The DRV nomination does not argue that an error in judgment or procedure occurred. There's nothing to see/do here.
Hog FarmTalk 04:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Endorse Well-attended near-unanimous delete consensus; the DRV does not allege a mistake being made anywhere in the process.
SportingFlyerT·C 20:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Speedy endorse. Deletion review is a venue to address issues of failure to follow deletion process. It is not for the making or re-making of arguments that could have been or were made at the AFD.
Stifle (
talk) 10:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Endorse as the majority of 'keep' arguments were
WP:ATADD, and speedy close per WP:TIMEWASTING.
——Serial 10:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Endorse - While I think
WP:NOTINHERITED is often misinterpreted at AfD, this is a clear example of its correct application to see that the most promising-looking RSes do not support notability. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is, as noted several times above, a bad argument: at DRV we try to get deletion practice on course one AfD at a time; as a volunteer encyclopedia we cannot make a radical commitment to consistent application of policy. —
Charles Stewart(talk) 12:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Sadly Endorse. I honestly suspect the sourcing is out there, it's just hard to find. But until that's proven we've reached the right outcome. I feel like there must be reviews of this poem in "the literature" at least in sources that cover children's lit.
Hobit (
talk) 19:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Endorse:
Several editors have said to Speedy Endorse, but do we have a criterion for speedy endorse?
If not, the close was the correct close for the AFD.
We do have the option to speedy-close a listing that "has no prospect of success"; see
WP:DELREVD towards the end.
Stifle (
talk) 14:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.