Landon Tewers ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

History was removed from the redirect without any discussion, and it has been at draft for over two weeks. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 23:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Jax 0677, I don't understand what the problem is. Someone converted the longstanding redirect at Landon Tewers to an article; that article was draftified; you recreated the longstanding redirect; the draftified version is being dealt with in draftspace. At no point did any deletion occur, meaning that this is outside DRV's scope. But even putting that aside, does it really matter whether the history of Landon Tewers shows that the redirect was created in 2017 or in 2022? Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 01:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Reply - I vaguely remember reading that the deletion of redirects with valuable article history should be avoided. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 01:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Well, yeah, but the complete history of the redirect is still here and there are no deletions in the draft history either. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 15:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Reply - People have little way of knowing that the draft article exists. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 16:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• It's not DRV's job to fix that, though. And we don't do redirects from articlespace to Draft: space, last I checked. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 19:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Speedy close. Nothing has been deleted so this request is outside the scope of DRV. Stifle ( talk) 17:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Is WP:MR the correct forum? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 20:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  To be honest, I am rather unsure what you are asking for. If you want to have Draft:Landon Tewers moved to Landon Tewers, you need to address the reasons why the draft was declined and the decline comment does point to the places where you can get the decline appealed. If you want to have your creation of the draft acknowledged in the redirect's history ... I don't think we do this and Primefac already declined your request, so you'd need to ask at User talk:Primefac and as the next step WP:AN. If you want the redirect to point to the draft instead, again we don't do this ( WP:R#DELETE and WP:R2) and you'd need to get the policies changed at WT:CSD and WT:R but I don't think that will work. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 11:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Reply - When "Landon Tewers" was moved to Draft:Landon Tewers, Landon Tewers and the history there was deleted after the move. Article history should not be deleted unilaterally from an article name without speedy deletion, an AFD or some type of discussion. Redirects with valuable history should be kept with the history in tact, which has not happened here. Usually, when an AFD like this takes place, it will result in redirect with history left in tact. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 12:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  It wasn't deleted, it was moved to Draft:Landon Tewers. When a page is moved its history is moved as well; in this case to this page. If my understanding is correct you want to have the two oldest entries on this history moved to this history? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Hi, Jax 0677. You can ask for clarifications about what policy says at Wikipedia:Help desk or at Wikipedia:Teahouse; I think contributors at either of those venues will be happy to explain about attribution and article histories as they relate to redirects and drafts. If you want to review Primefac's decision specifically, we now have a venue for that at WP:XRV. I can't see anything wrong or problematic about what's happened.— S Marshall  T/ C 13:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  Jax 0677 wants his draft back in mainspace, obviously. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Reply - XRV says "Do not use this process yet" and "The operating procedures for this process are under discussion". -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 15:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Where does it say "Do not use this process yet"?— S Marshall  T/ C 17:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
• Reply - It was the top, but the header may have received been altered since that time. It now says "Administrative action review should not be used:

to request an appeal or review of an action with a dedicated review process For review of page deletions or review of deletion discussion closures, use Wikipedia:Deletion review (DRV) For review of page moves, use Wikipedia:Move review (MRV)". -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 17:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Administrative close The draftification had the appropriate effect. Nothing was deleted. The best way forward is to improve the draft; if that can't happen, I'm not sure what the point of the history under the redirect would really be, but any admin can put that back if it's never going to be a standalone article. Jclemens ( talk) 02:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Mainspace and AfD per SmokeyJoe below. Jclemens ( talk) 21:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply
• WP:DRAFTOBJECT. Delete the current mainspace thing, and move the draft back to mainspace. Allow anyone to AfD it. AfC and draftspace is optional, and the author has clearly objected. Draftification must not be used as back door deletion. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Reply - I think that this is the only policy based conclusion that can be arrived at at this point. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 12:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The draft Draft:Landon Tewers was polluted with bad sources, but it had a couple of good sources. I have cut most of the worst. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Paul Heitz ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This was closed by a non-admin as a Redirect against the unanimous consensus of all other parties (save for the article creator himself), and without any analysis as to why he did so. I might have taken the question to the closer's talk page, were it not for the caution at the top of his talk page: "If you're here to throw hissy fits over the closures of any deletion discussion, either drop the stick and accept the consensus or take them to the deletion review. The closures I've done are well-thought and therefore final, whether you like it or not. So, ain't nobody got time to argue with anyone over this matter." To my mind, a non-admin who closes in defiance of consensus, declines to set forth his analysis as to why, and refuses to discuss his reasoning has little to no business making non-admin closes, but that's a separate issue. In any event, this illegitimate closure should be reversed, and the article promptly and properly deleted. Ravenswing 21:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Is there any particular reason why you oppose a redirect, Ravenswing? WP:ATD is policy, and there was no reason given in the AfD why a redirect wouldn't be appropriate. (I'm not too impressed by the closer's unwillingness to listen to good-faith feedback, but, as you note, that's not a matter for us to deal with.) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 22:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

ATD is policy, but it also doesn't really apply; there is nothing in ATD mandating redirects; and frankly I don't think it's a likely search term. Neither did anyone else there save for Lugnuts, and it's not as if people commenting on Lugnuts post-NOLY sub-stubs generally are avoiding redirect as an option; I've advocated for it myself when I feel that there's enough of a claim to notability to believe that there's a credible chance sourcing might appear in the future. Ravenswing 00:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

That's fair. The best option here would probably be to relist: Lugnuts's suggestion to redirect came right at the end of the seven-day period, and it seems that there are reasonable arguments against it that haven't yet been aired. The closer, who has already been told " to be more conservative with WP:NAC", probably needs to be taken to ANI: it's a bedrock expectation that closers be willing to respond to legitimate concerns. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 01:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I've no objection to User:Superastig being taken to ANI, if this is indeed a habit of his + his seriously uncivil talk page (and I've found other such controversies, such as [1]), but I do note from his talk page archive that he's sometimes solicited to make non-admin closes at AfD. I wouldn't be secure -- yet -- about him being sanctioned, but perhaps a warning at ANI, combined with a strong reminder that his talk page is a valid and proper venue for questioning his actions, would serve. Ravenswing 04:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

“ he's sometimes solicited to make non-admin closes at AfD”? What?!

Privately soliciting one’s choice of closure is not ok. If you have been solicited, you are WP:INVOLVED. The solicitor should be warned, and anyone who closes discussions on private solicitation should be severely chastised. If a close is waiting and someone wants it closed, use WP:ANRFC. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

This is a technically correct but substantially erroneous statement. WP:ATD references WP:EDIT as it's "main page", which includes WP:PRESERVE, which does include redirection as one of many alternatives preferable to deleting content. Jclemens ( talk) 02:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply

For the record, I've never come across the AfD closer before, and therefore not aware of their past track-record in closing AfDs. But if there is indeed an ongoing issue with this, then warnings/ANI may be needed. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to delete- re-establishing a redirect afterwards is a matter for editorial discretion. But consensus at the AfD was clear. Reyk _YO! 22:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• I mean, the close isn't wrong, is it? Lugnuts' !vote has all four feet on the bedrock of policy and he links directly to the policy paragraph that supports what he says. In my view the real problem here is the notice at the top of the closer's talk page which says "if you want to talk to me about my close, fuck off." Non-admin closers of deletion discussions are subject to WP:ADMINACCT and policy requires them to engage courteously and collegially with enquirers.— S Marshall  T/ C 22:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Overturn WP:BADNAC. This closer is not an experienced respected closer, but has a history of bad closes, and they are not suitable to make such bold closes. WP:Supervote. This is not to say that “redirect” is unreasonable, the subject has a table entry there, but neither was it the flow of the discussion. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  Way too much in this DRV is AfD business. The question is whether it was closed right. It wasn’t. So overturn. Then, let an uninvolved admin reclose, when it is time to close. DRV should not be prescribing a close when there is a strong case that the AfD discussion wasn’t finished. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to delete - or alternatively, relist. There is clearly no consensus to redirect, and if the closer believed that redirecting was the correct decision then they should have !voted, rather than supervoted. Further, the closer should not be closing anything while they are unwilling to discuss said closures. BilledMammal ( talk) 00:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to Relist - By stating in advance that they are not willing to discuss their closes, and not providing an analysis, the closer has stated in advance that they should not be doing closes. This is a content forum, and we do not address the conduct issues, but the appellant does have a reason to go to WP:ANI. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse WP:ATD is policy, and the redirect was un-disputed, either previously ("delete and do not redirect") or subsequently. I would have preferred a relist, to allow delete !voters to consider the redirect, but fundamentally since V is met, a "delete and do not redirect" is not obviously policy-based. NAC is one outstanding issue, and so I do suggest this be re-closed (as redirect) by an admin. Jclemens ( talk) 06:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per WP:ATD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse there is very little difference between Delete and Redirect here, both of them constitute a decision that we shouldn't have an article about the subject. Deletion wouldn't even preclude a redirect being created later and given that the article was an extremely short stub there's nothing to merge. Although only one person !voted Redirect, nobody else objected to redirection or offered an argument against it, so closing as Redirect was reasonable, and the title is clearly an appropriate search term. I'm a bit surprised so many people are objecting to it. Hut 8.5 11:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Nobody else supported a redirect. I'm a bit surprised at the implication that you think it's necessary for everyone who voted otherwise at AfD to personally register objections to a contrary vote -- especially one posted several days after every other -- in order to verify that they still hold to their positions. Ravenswing 17:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• In most situations that's reasonable, but in a typical AfD Delete and Redirect aren't contrary votes. Both achieve the same outcome of getting rid of the content. They aren't even mutually exclusive, there would be nothing stopping someone from redirecting the title if it was deleted. There might be a difference in the outcome if someone wanted to merge the content after redirecting, but there wasn't anything worth merging here anyway. I don't see anything in this case to suggest it was any different from the norm. Relisting the AfD just to discuss whether a redirect is a good idea strikes me as a waste of time. Hut 8.5 18:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• If you believe there's no material difference between a delete and a redirect, and you think this is a waste of time, then why are you contesting the DRV? Ravenswing 01:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• It's not exactly rare to have an AfD where opinion is split between Delete and Redirect but where the Delete side don't offer any explicit reason not to redirect or oppose redirecting. Closers should be able to close such things as Redirect even if they aren't in the majority, which won't be the case if we keep overturning them here. But yes if this is closed as "Overturn to delete" then I'm tempted to redirect the thing anyway as it makes a reasonable redirect. Hut 8.5 10:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Relist. The suggestion to relist was in line with policy, but there was no consensus for that option and given how late in the discussion it was suggested there was no opportunity for the editors who had already opined to share their views on the matter. I would never expect someone to say "Delete and do not redirect" in an AfD if there has been no suggestion of redirecting made anywhere in the discussion. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• I strongly object to the closer's comments on his talk page. If they aren't willing to deal with concerns about their closes, they shouldn't be closing. But that said, I endorse this close per Hut 8.5. Hobit ( talk) 15:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I still think redirect was a reasonable close, but relisting would have been a better one. It's what we should generally do when a novel argument gets introduced at the end of an AfD. Hobit ( talk) 03:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete It obviously sets a bad precedent if anybody can drive by, throw in a quick two-word vote of no substance but that just so happens to contain the initials "ATD", and have that override a clear consensus of other editors in favor of a different outcome. ATD is not a policy that prohibits deletion, and on that grounds alone it follows that it is not in any closer's discretion to impose his own preferred outcome on basis of it. How similar "redirect" is to "delete" is nugatory: all but one editors wished to delete the content, and there was no reason to ignore their cocnerns. Avilich ( talk) 23:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • None of them expressed a reason why a redirect wouldn't be acceptable. If they had, that would be one thing. But they didn't. Now they also didn't really have a big chance to do so after the redirect !vote. But at most this should be a relist so the redirect could be discussed. Can you articulate a reason why a redirect is wrong or bad from a policy/guideline viewpoint? I don't think any such reason exists, but my !vote is based on no one providing a reason to believe a redirect is somehow bad or wrong. Hobit ( talk) 23:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

A reason for deletion is automatically an argument against any alternatives to deletion, and failure to provide an ATD is not a reason for preventing a deletion from taking place. A redirect is too trivial on its own to justify an AfD discussion being extended for another entire week. What was being discussed was the article and its content, and all the participants -- including Lugnuts -- reached basically the same conclusion: that a standalone article should not exist. A delete outcome does not stop anybody from creating a redirect without the edit history, and whoever wants to dispute its usefulness can discuss it at WP:RFD -- but this here is "Articles for deletion", and the consensus in this discussion was clearly to delete the content. Avilich ( talk) 23:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

A reason for deletion that precludes or argues against reasonable alternatives to deletion is an argument against any such alternatives. An argument from silence is not sustainable; that leads to things like Sandstein's closes against numerical consensus just because one side of a debate didn't mention an argument he preferred. Jclemens ( talk) 08:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Perhaps you're misunderstanding DRV, Hobit, and I suggest you reread WP:DRVPURPOSE. It is not to relitigate the decision -- indeed, this is explicitly a "do NOT" at DRV -- nor to second-guess the original voters, but to determine whether or not the consensus in the original discussion was properly reflected in the close. I believe it was not. I'm not sure from where you get the idea that the four editors advocating deletion were compelled to address the POV of the one who didn't (several days after the fact) before their views could be properly taken into account, but this curious notion is unsupported by any guideline or policy. Ravenswing 01:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I've got to say, I'm finding both of you (Ravenswing and Avilich) to be more than a bit frustrating. So let's try again. Ravenswing, are you claiming your !vote in the AfD was specifically against a redirect? If so, could you explain what policy or guideline is that basis of that part of your !vote? If neither of you have such an argument, then why do you feel those !voting did? These are !votes for a reason (rather than votes)--strength of argument can carry the day. I tend to believe in "numeric consensus" more than most and am a big fan of IAR. But here those in the numeric consensus didn't address redirecting and, as far as I know, there is no guideline or policy that would be against a redirect here. So yes, the close was correct. This isn't nose counting. Hobit ( talk) 06:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

And what I am finding frustrating is that you do not seem to get that your question is irrelevant to this DRV. Obviously I did not explicitly stipulate in the AfD that I was opposed to a redirect. Nor was I required to do so. Nor am I required to do so now. Nor is relitigating the AfD a proper subject for DRV. If you just plain disagree, and think that relitigating AfDs are proper subjects for DRV, take it up on the appropriate talk page. But as it stands, it's improper to take a close to DRV because you disagree with the closer's position. You do so because you believe the close was improperly done. The time for registering your opinion as to whether the article should be kept, deleted or redirected was during the span of the AfD. It is not now. Ravenswing 06:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

"Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." There is a policy-based argument for a redirect. No policy-based arguments have been made for not redirecting. Which do you think then has the better argument? I get you don't like that. And I get that this could cause last-minute !votes to dominate in some cases. But that's why we give closers discretion. And why, at most, you should be asking for a relist so you'd have a chance to make the argument that redirection is the wrong thing. But your argument that more votes means it should happen isn't how AfD works. Hobit ( talk) 08:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

As a long time editor at RfD, if the redirect were nominated there it would almost certainly be kept. The only reasons why it wouldn't be would be if there was another notable person of the same name or if it was seen as desirable to have an article about them. The AfD (whether it is closed as delete or redirect) clearly indicates that the consensus is that there should not be an article about this person. There are two other uses of the name I have been able to find - an author who is not mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia and shows no evidence of notability, and a fictional character in The Gorgon (a 1964 film) mentioned only in the cast list and as list entry in the actor's filmography, neither being useful search terms. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

If you think this is a good redirect, then by all means, create one without the edit history -- nothing is preventing you from doing so. This has no bearing on what was the consensus of this discussion. Avilich ( talk) 18:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Why on earth must the edit history be destroyed (well, rendered inaccessible to non-admins), in your logic? What is the policy- or common-sense-based reason for doing that. I simply see nothing to be gained by doing so--enlighten me? Jclemens ( talk) 08:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Most participants cited WP:DEL-REASON#8, a policy-based reason, for voting delete, and that is already in itself an argument for not keeping, redirecting, or merging. No policy-based arguments were really made for redirecting: vaguewaves barely even count, and at no point did Lugnuts elaborate on why redirecting is a valid AFD. If you cannot understand where consensus leans in such situation, then there is little point in arguing further. Avilich ( talk) 18:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  DELREASON #8 is indeed a valid argument for deletion, but it is not an argument against redirection - indeed in many cases it is an argument for redirection: if a person is not notable enough for their own article then we want to discourage people from creating one, if they are mentioned elsewhere then a redirect does this (the corollary to WP:REDLINK). The AfD should have been relisted so that editors had the opportunity to consider (and refute if they desire) the suggestion to create a redirect. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

A reason for deletion is, by definition, itself a reason for not doing any ATD. Relisting for such a trivial reason is a silly idea: WP:RFD is the other way, and AfDs shouldn't take any more time than absolutely needed to determine the suitability of a standalone article. Redirects can be created manually, so I don't understand why you, Hobit and others want those involved to waste their time in an AfD that has already run its course. Avilich ( talk) 21:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I think the same about "waste their time in an AfD that has already run its course" applies even more to those trying to change the outcome of said AfD, yes? But let's be real here, to me the question that this comes down to is if we're counting noses or weighing arguments. I'm usually more of a nose counter than most. But here we have no valid arguments for not having a redirect paired with a valid argument for having one. Seems really really open and shut and I'm worried that others (many of whom I respect quite a bit) are counting noses here. Hobit ( talk) 03:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to delete. I completely agree with Ravenswing, but further action may be required. A editor who is blatantly disregarding a fundamental Wikipedia policy, consensus, and then on his talk page being rather hostile about complaints seems to be a serious issue. I'm not sure what to recommend, but something should be done in this regard. Sea Cow ( talk) 22:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete If editors say delete, they mean delete. I find the above suggestions that they mean delete or redirect odd, without merit, and an attempt to negate the words and meaning of those who say delete. Delete means delete, it does not mean redirect. If no one has even proposed redirecting there is no need to explain why a redirect is unwarranted, and it is unreasonably to expect people to have to come back and explain. We should take people at their word. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  You have made a case for discarding all delete opinions by a closer examining the policy basis of such !votes. WP:AFD is policy, and so any delete vote that doesn't deal with it simply isn't policy based. Jclemens ( talk) 02:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse per Hut 8.5's argument. Nothing wrong with the closure at all. Whether to delete or redirect the article have the same outcome and the closure shouldn't be a big deal. The person was part of the competition and that makes him an appropriate search term. Therefore, a redirect to the competition's article is a valid ATD. After all, a redirect won't hurt. SBKSPP ( talk) 00:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• The outcome of this discussion was, very clearly, to delete, and had I seen this DRV before it had gotten this much commentary I'd have reclosed it as such in my individual capacity as an administrator. A single redirect vote (and I omit the ! advisedly) without any rationale specific to the article cast a few hours before the AFD was scheduled for closure does not constitute a veto of that outcome, particularly when done by the article's creator. We must not encourage such gaming of the system by relisting this and forcing editors to redebate it. If this title is to become a redirect, it can be created editorially after the deletion of the article's history as determined by the unanimous consensus of uninvolved afd participants, whom we have a duty not to discourage. Overturn to delete. — Cryptic 08:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  Are you alleging that Lugnuts is WP:INVOLVED with this article? If you aren't then there was no unanimous consensus for any action. If you are alleging involvement then please supply evidence, either way please supply evidence of gaming the system per WP:ASPERSIONS. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  I'd have to say, as someone who is no friend to Lugnuts' antics, that in all fairness there's no reason to think there's any chicanery involved. He commented on the AfD, as was his privilege to do, and there's nothing sinister about the timing. He'd stepped away for a week or so after his ANI sanction, so that might well have been the first time he noticed the filing. Even if it hadn't been, as long as an AfD vote comes in before the close, it's as valid as any other. Ravenswing 20:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to delete - simply as a matter of policy. The consensus was not to redirect, but to delete. Not saying I disagree with Lugnuts suggestion, but the closer basically taking that route amounts to a super!vote. I might have relisted with a comment pinging all prior editors to take a look at Lugnuts' suggestion. But to do so unilaterally was incorrect. I understand Hobit's point, but in this case, where both sides used "reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments", the majority of the !votes was clearly to delete. Again, I personally would have relisted. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I'd certainly have no objections to a relist, and I think that's what the closer should likely have done. The only part I disagree with is that I'm unaware of an argument, at all, for not having a redirect. I don't think I've seen a "reasonable, logical, policy-based argument" for not redirecting either in the AfD or here. Hobit ( talk) 16:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Relist. I think that redirecting to the event that this athlete participated in would be a good idea, but there wasn't a consensus for it; the redirect was first suggested only a few hours before the AfD was closed and no one else had made a recommendation for or against having a redirect. Furthermore, the closer's refusal to discuss their AfD closures is inappropriate. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete. WP:ATD is a policy, but so is WP:CON. There was a lack of consensus to redirect, but a clear one to delete. ✗ plicit 04:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete or relist. As BilledMammal wrote, the closer should have participated instead of closing. My recommendation would be the same if it had been closed by an admin. Flatscan ( talk) 05:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete in line with the consensus at the discussion. ATD isn't something you can just throw in and it suddenly overrides everything. Terrible closure. Stifle ( talk) 11:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • @ Stifle:I've asked and I've asked. Is there a policy-based reason to not have a redirect here? Are you mainly worried about getting the history deleted? About counting noses?
    You and I often don't see eye-to-eye, but I generally understand where you are coming from. Here I don't. Hobit ( talk) 23:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • The policy-based reason is WP:CON: there is a consensus. Policy is, for the most part, interpreted and applied by the community through consensus discussions, as has happened here. Stifle ( talk) 09:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
      • Thanks. I guess what bothers me is that as far as I can tell no one has yet given a policy-based reason for not having a redirect. The only argument I'm seeing is "people said delete", but we don't count noses, we look at policy-based arguments, yes? Do you see (or have) a policy-based reason for not having a redirect? I'm fine with a relist, but I think it's pretty likely a relist will result in a redirect since there are no reasons to not have a redirect... Hobit ( talk) 12:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
        • We're going round in circles I'm afraid. Policy says you respect consensus. That's it. That's the tweet. Stifle ( talk) 09:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply
          • WP:CON supports redirect: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." WP:ATD is policy, which means that in order to be counted as policy-based, a deletion argument must convincingly address and dismiss the possibility of any less-than-deletion alternative. In the subject discussion, there are zero effective delete opinions, and redirect is the policy-based consensus, because numbers don't matter. In practice, if a bunch of folks say delete and there are no policy-compliant alternatives (like redirection) presented, we just delete it. But the moment one person comes up with a single good argument why deletion isn't necessary, that becomes the consensus until and unless refuted. WP:DGFA is also very clear: "When in doubt, don't delete." Jclemens ( talk) 18:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply
• General note: Many of you have suggested that Superastig be taken to ANI over his actions. I've looked at his past several dozen AfD closes (he does rather a lot of them), and I've identified several other cases where he not only has closed against consensus, but has a marked preference for closing as redirect in those cases. I made a post to his talk page asking him to address these concerns, and as I said there, how he responds will inform where we go from here. Ravenswing 11:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and Relist In general, I think that a late call for a redirect (that makes a certain amount of sense) should lead to a relisted discussion to determine whether there is support for the redirect. In general, this does feel like a bad NAC. -- Enos733 ( talk) 16:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. I haven't seen an argument explaining why a redirect would be inappropriate here and I can't believe so much figurative ink has been wasted on this discussion. Even if the article were deleted, there's nothing stopping someone from creating a new redirect. (I should also add that based on some of the comments in this discussion, I get the feeling we wouldn't be here if it was an admin who had made this exact same close.) Calidum 17:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Relist The close was improper. When we close as Delete, sometimes we mean that the subject shouldn't be covered at all, and sometimes we mean just that it shouldn't have an article . Usually comment at the afd makes it clear which is meant, and it can be closed accordingly. It takes judgement to recognize which is appropriate. The normal course after the redirect was suggested is that one of the other people in the discussion, generally the nominator, would come back at say whether a redirect was acceptable, To immediately close without leaving time for discussion was a unwise close. At the very least, the closer should explain which was intended, and if not on the close, in response to questions. (I & others will sometimes ensure that a redirect is or is not ok in the nomination). This sort of judgment is especially important when the reason for deletion is in fact a very recent change in a deletion guideline that may or may not be fully accepted.

But the really important part of this is the closer doing the close at all. By the time they saw it, it was a disputed AfD, and not the sort of obvious one suitable for an non-admin close. Even more important than that rule is the practice that generally in this sort of situation someone asks the closer about it on the talk page and an explanation is forthcoming, and usually answers the problem--for example, in this instance most closers would probably have said that they agreed a redirect was suitable, as I think is the consensus here. By not being open to a discussion, a closer makes it much more difficult to correct minor oversights like this; most challenges to a close are settled in this manner--very few actually come to deletion review. If someone doesn't want to discuss what they say at WP, they can avoid taking actions that might possibly be disputed; if they do get involved in disagreements, they need to be willing to explain themselves, Not just in deketion, but everywhere in WP, the great majority of disputes are in fact resolved by the 1st step in the process, discussion. It wouldn't be practical at our size for every disagrement to be taken to a formal forum as the first step. I expect someone will take this to ani about the closer's behavior, but the issue of the close itself can and should be settled here, and in this instance a relist is the simplest way to do so. DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse The only difference between deleting and redirecting is the existence of the article history. Genuine question: who gives a flying fuck about the article history? Was wiping that damn pesky article history off the face of the internet so terribly important that you had to open a DRV and waste even more editor time? How ridiculous. Let's just close this and spend our time doing something more productive than arguing over whether nine (9) edits should be logged on the website or not. Mlb96 ( talk) 03:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  Well, gosh, and who forced you to waste your valuable time to look over this and register an opinion? You do you, care about whatever floats your boat, and go be productive wherever you wish. Ravenswing 05:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• @ Mlb96: That's right. The closure happened a month ago and it's pointless to make this a big deal IMV. What matters is that the article shouldn't be kept. Does a redirect hurt them? Lol. SBKSPP ( talk) 00:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and Relist - a strong policy-based argument was given towards the end of the discussion, but previous to this point consensus was clearly to outright delete. More time should have been given to discuss the merits of a point that was significantly different than what was previously discussed. 78.26 _{( spin me / revolutions)} 20:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist I've seen "delete or redirect" AfDs before and the question for the closer - since participants often don't address it - is whether Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion implies an absolute priority of a redirect over deletion. I think someday we want to clarify the policy to say whether it does, because it isn't clear to me whether the possibility of a redirect absolutely bars deletion and without clarity the closer is often left to guess (i.e supervote). Jclemens references Wikipedia:Editing policy#Try to fix problems which discusses merging+redirect as an alternative to deletion not redirect with nothing merged, so it doesn't clarify either. So with that in mind, further discussion to see if a consensus in favour of the option would emerge would have been advised. And yes, when you close a discussion you are responsible for it, and that includes answering any queries or complaints.

  Regarding Cryptic's argument, Lugnuts has written most of the article and is its author, for what it's worth. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 11:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect established a consensus for equal weights in 2011, but WP:Consensus can change. WT:Deletion policy/Archive 48#Does the community really agree with WP:ATD as policy? revisited the topic in 2018. WT:Deletion policy/Archive 46#RFC: delete and redirect (2015) was more about how a redirect consensus is implemented. Flatscan ( talk) 05:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  Except that this is a good redirect that would be kept at RfD, so even if it is deleted, anyone could recreate it. So again, the only difference is the existence of the article history. Is it really worth relisting just so that you can delete the article history? Mlb96 ( talk) 06:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  My issue isn't whether the page ends up as a redirect or not or whether there is a history under the redirect but about how AfDs should be processed when they have such a disagreement on which part of the policy has priority. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• This whole close still irks me. If it is allowed to stand it will basically say that most voters in AfD discussions can be totally and completely ignored, and what they say does not need to be taken at face value. This would be a very bad precedent. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • You can blame the intersection of WP:CON and WP:ATD, which says that policy-based votes get more weight. We've been deleting things despite a preponderance of "Keep, I like it" or "Keep, GHits" for years; this is just the logical converse of that. Jclemens ( talk) 20:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply
• Having redirects that are not about people covered in substantial ways is a disservice to the project. It makes it harder for people to create articles on other people with the same name. I see no reason to redirect to bare statistical tables. Wikipedia is not served by having a huge number of redirects to of names of non-notable people. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist. The relevant policies and guidelines:
  1. Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus says: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. For instance, if the entire page is found to be a copyright violation, the page is always deleted. If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, that argument is no longer relevant."
  2. Wikipedia:Consensus#Determining consensus says, "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy."
  3. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, "A page can be blanked and redirected if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not inappropriate."
  4. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Try to fix problems says: "Instead of removing content from an article, consider: ... Merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect as described at performing a merge".
  Why I support preserving an article's history when possible: At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fairhaven Baptist Academy, three editors supported deletion but changed to supporting a redirect after I proposed a redirect and pinged them. My view on this is close to that of Jclemens ( talk · contribs) who put it well here, "Why on earth must the edit history be destroyed (well, rendered inaccessible to non-admins), in your logic? What is the policy- or common-sense-based reason for doing that. I simply see nothing to be gained by doing so--enlighten me?"

  When there is an alternative to deletion, I always support keeping the article's history accessible to non-admins if there are no BLP violations or copyright violations or anything else that should be publicly inaccessible in the history. The article may contain useful content for a merge or useful sources. The article may have unreliable sources that cannot be cited. But the unreliable sources may have information that helps editors find reliable sources that can be used. Without having to ask an admin to restore to draft, a non-admin who is interested in recreating the article with better sourcing and content can immediately view the prior state of the article to see if anything can be reused.

  Why I support overturning the close: Regardless of the vote count, when a reasonable alternative to deletion is raised with no arguments made against why it is inappropriate or why the article history should be deleted, the closer should either implement the alternative to deletion or relist the discussion and ask the participants for their opinion on the alternative to deletion. As this AfD discussion did not contain any arguments against the alternative to deletion, I find there to be a rough consensus based on the strength of the arguments to redirect (with the article history preserved under the redirect).

  Despite finding the assessment of consensus to be accurate, I support overturning the close. When editors raise an objection to the redirect after the close as is the case here, the AfD should be reopened and relisted to give editors the opportunity to explain why the page should be deleted instead of redirected. It is fine for a closer to close against the headcount when presented with an alternative to deletion that is reasonable and uncontested. It is not fine for a closer to be unwilling to reopen the discussion once the alternative to deletion has been contested.

  The closer initially had this message on their talk page: "If you're here to throw hissy fits over the closures of any deletion discussion, either drop the stick and accept the consensus or take them to the deletion review. The closures I've done are well-thought and therefore final, whether you like it or not. So, ain't nobody got time to argue with anyone over this matter." This does not comply with Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability, which non-admin AfD closers should follow. The AfD closer should have been open to discussion. That way, the DRV initiator could have asked and had the closer reopen the AfD to allow for arguments to be made about why Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion does not apply in this case. I am glad that the closer has since removed that talk page message.

  Cunard ( talk) 08:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse While relisting to decide between delete and redirect would be valid, given the redirect was proposed rather late in the process and never opposed by anyone and there was clear consensus the article shouldn't be kept in its current state, this is a valid WP:BARTENDER close. Smartyllama ( talk) 20:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply
• Relist or start an RFC. If I were voting, I would probably vote redirect. However, there isn't clear enough consensus in the original discussion for that. There are quite a lot of Olympic athlete stub bios which might show up at AFD - it may be helpful to have an RFC to establish guidelines for when participants should be redirected to an event rather than deleted. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Ivar Virgin ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The closer essentially gave no analysis on deletion within their initial argument and consistently cited non-notabilit .despite around 11 references within the original article. It also doesn't help that one of the rationales cited by a user used WP:SOLDIER which was no longer used and strongly discouraged by WikiProject Military history, to which the original closer essentially going by WP:IDONTLIKEIT as well as violating WP:PRIMARY in his original rationale for deletion as well as avoiding commentary within my own comment in the discussion. Despite this however, the original article also had several secondary sources. Another editor also cited WP:BASIC when there were already again, several documents and books as references. SuperSkaterDude45 ( talk) 05:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Nomination amounts to an attempt to relitigate the DRV because it did not go the nominator's way. Stifle ( talk) 12:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the one Keep comment pointed out correctly that WP:SOLDIER is no longer used, but most of the Delete comments were founded on WP:BASIC, and nothing was done to counteract that, so the close of that discussion was fine. When it was deleted the article had citations to 6 sources, but almost all of them were public records, directory listings and geneaolgy sites, and I'm not surprised those weren't considered sufficient coverage. The only exception is [2], which is a biography of his father which mentions him very briefly. Hut 8.5 12:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Appellant has not pointed out an error by the closer (because there wasn't one). Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Ask the closer, User:Premeditated Chaos, for an explanation of the close. Do this before coming to DRV with a complaint of inadequate explanation. I can see that the closer reasonable assumed that no explanation was required, but closers should make allowance of editors not well encultured into Wikipedia XfD. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• On the whole, I'm not happy with how this played out. Nominating an article for deletion hours after it was created by a highly prolific and successful editor seems rude at best. Said successful editor, who I would expect to know how AfD works, didn't do a great job providing actual sources that meet WP:N during the AfD and appears to have bypassed PMC's talk page in coming here. I'm probably too caught up in our deletion process, I just find it weird such an editor wouldn't know how the process works better. But that's unfair. So @ SuperSkaterDude45: could you list the 3 or 4 sources you feel are independent (so not purely military sources) and reliable about Ivar Virgin? We'll need those sources to have an article. And sorry if you know all that, it's hard to tell exactly where things are breaking down. Hobit ( talk) 15:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • @ Hobit: Well for starters, This, This, This and This all give the same general biography from different sources. It should also be noted that the original article was translated from the Swedish Wikipedia rather than a independent article of its own. SuperSkaterDude45 ( talk) 13:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • While it's irrelevant to whether the close was good or not, none of those sources constitute WP:SIGCOV; they're all just a handful of factoids. If that's the best there is, I'd have voted to delete as well. Ravenswing 13:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • I do think you're light on significant coverage. Is there a good merge/redirect target? Hobit ( talk) 15:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse: I don't get it: where was the error in the closer's part? There was a clear consensus, and the one Keep voter failed to set forth a valid ground to keep: it's not enough to stipulate that a deletion ground might not be valid, one must stipulate a valid ground to keep. DRV is explicitly not for relitigating the AfD, but for errors on the closer's part. I don't see the obvious controversy (warranting an explanation) in the closer confirming the consensus. (That actually would've been shakier consensus, perhaps, if the nom here had actually registered a vote.) That the nom doesn't like the result is plain, but obviously other editors disagreed with his analysis. Ravenswing 12:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Male expendability ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This was a complicated discussion with varying opinions, but the closer gave no analysis, commentary, or summarization whatsoever. As is typical for AfDs, I think this needs to be closed by an administrator. –– FormalDude talk 00:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• I agree that this was not a case where a non-admin closure was appropriate: the discussion was obviously controversial, and the outcome was by no means clear. The best solution here would be for an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity to reopen the discussion, as WP:NACD allows, thereby sparing us a week of discussion over what is straightforwardly a WP:BADNAC. Barring that, the closure should be vacated and the AfD reclosed by a sysop. I would encourage AssumeGoodWraith to be a bit more circumspect in his closures and relists: if the outcome isn't obvious, it's almost always best to leave it to an administrator. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 01:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• On one hand, an AfD this long and acrimonious shouldn't be closed by a NAC. On the other hand I don't see how this could be close as anything other than "no consensus", except possibly to overturn to keep. So I would say, endorse but don't do it again. Reyk _YO! 06:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  @ Reyk: Isn't the possibility that it should be overturned to keep reason enough to vacate the closure? Especially combined with the fact that it shouldn't have been a NAC? –– FormalDude talk 07:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• I suppose it depends if you're asking for the close to be overturned to something specific, or just objecting on principle to any non-admin close at all for this AfD. Reyk _YO! 08:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  I have no vested interest in the closure (I have not edited the article nor the deletion discussion). I'm objecting on the grounds that this was a poor quality closure on what should not have been a NAC in the first place. –– FormalDude talk 22:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• I'm happy to vacate the close and re-close it as no-consensus again if you like. Stifle ( talk) 12:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  @ Stifle: As long as the close is vacated. Thanks. –– FormalDude talk 12:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• If I'd come across that, I as a non-admin would have happily closed that. But my closing summary would have run to several paragraphs. The problem isn't so much the closer's lack of credentials, it's more that their close doesn't give any closure.— S Marshall  T/ C 22:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn WP:BADNAC. I’ve asked the closer on their talk page to stop closing xfds, as they have little AfD experience, and have a run of bad cases. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• I think it could have been closed as keep or NC--the close isn't wrong IMO. But I do think at least a closing statement was required... Hobit ( talk) 15:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The topic may be controversial, but the closer did interpret the consensus correctly. An explanation for the closure is needed IMV. There's a rough consensus in the discussion though it's leaning keep. With how the discussion went, relisting it will be useless IMV. SBKSPP ( talk) 00:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Well, I can see where the "no consensus" comes from - while the keeps outnumber the deletes a fair amount of them are from single-purpose accounts and many are rather handwavey/not based in policy or guideline, and much of the rest of the argument appears to depend on how participants view the presented sources. However, one could perhaps also see a "keep" close. Either way, this needs a bit of an explanation of how one reached the conclusion. So better explanation needed. I don't think it's that much of an issue whether a nonadmin closes the discussion ( WP:NACPIT isn't a blanket ban on non-admin closes), the substance of the close is the issue here, not really the closer's credentials. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 15:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Ibrahim Al-Dulaimi ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

I agree with Wikipedia's policy of G3 standards. I contributed, persevered, and worked very hard in obtaining private information. Through my searches and searches, I made sure of all sources and activities to get to the real information, I leave for make sure From some sources: http://www.winstarchem.com/news-detail1.php?newsId=6 greetings to you all DodeDznIQ ( talk) 13:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment - This is a poorly stated appeal, probably because the appellant doesn't know enough English to be able to file a reasonable appeal, and likely the original article was equally poorly written. We should assume good faith and assume that the originator did not think that this was a hoax. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Weak Overturn to Allow AFD - This is a case where doubt on a speedy deletion should be resolved in favor of sending the article to AFD. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Assuming this is similar to the content of the article, I would endorse this on both WP:G3 and WP:G10. Sources are either completely unreliable or do not name the subject. Jumpytoo Talk 07:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment as deleter: honestly, it's hard to describe what the article was (though the diff Jumpytoo links above does capture the gist of it). It felt to me like the author took a biography of someone else, changed the name, and then added extremely dubious claims of notoriety that were extremely difficult to believe, poorly sourced or unsourced (seriously - the source the article creator presents at the top of this section is...a chemical company's website? something about that is very wrong), and major BLPvios (saying that the article subject had been arrested and/or sent to prison, if I remember right). It reminded me of some self-aggrandizing fantasy autobiographies I've seen before, except for the whole arrest bit. I believe it was both clearly made-up (so eligible for G3) and presented serious biographical issues, and so I feel my speedy was justified. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} ( talk to the boss) 14:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  Can this be proven? about It reminded me of some self-aggrandizing fantasy autobiographies I've seen before, except for the whole arrest bit. I believe it was both clearly made-up

  some sources, but they are in the Arabic language..it is difficult for you to understand them..

  source from some source : https://www.awla.news/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%87%D9%83%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%82%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%87%D9%8A%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%85%D9%8A-%D8%A8%D8%AD%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%AD/

  I am trying to find other sources. DodeDznIQ ( talk) 19:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, noting lack of confidence with the experience of the author. Allow him to try again in userspace or draftspace. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Draftify. The article was written in poor English, but that would be easily fixable and is not a reason to delete. The article was sourced, and those sources seem to show that the claimed activities did take place, however they do not show that they were done by a person of this name. The source presented in this appeal, which was not in the deleted article, does verify that a person of this name was part of LulzSec, which together with the other sources don't make me confident this was a hoax and G10 certainly does not apply as the article is neutrally written. I can't object to the G3 without the new source though, so this was not a bad speedy. It however not survive AfD in its present state - it needs sources that tie the person of this name to the activities described - including but not limited to the source presented here, so putting it in draftspace (or userspace if the author prefers) seems like the best option. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  Yes , The article was written in poor English

  I am trying to find other sources.

  after that i modify article for the better

  Thanks Thryduulf DodeDznIQ ( talk) 19:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• draftify This may possibly be a hoax, but it is not obviously a hoax. The sources are not necessarily about this person, but they are not the degree of irrelevancy that makes a hoax obvious. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Template:Martina Navratilova ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Template:Naomi Osaka ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Template:Chris Evert ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Template:Bob and Mike Bryan ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

While I agree with the elimination of most of the tennis player navboxes listed in the bulk nomination, which simply mirrored their respective career statistics articles, these 4 templates should not have been deleted. With respect to the nominator, saying "all of these players don't deserve one" of a list including these players only shows very limited knowledge of the subject area. Martina Navratilova and Chris Evert are two of the greatest female players of all time by any metric, Naomi Osaka is the highest-earning female athlete of all time [3] and the Bryan Brothers are the greatest men's doubles team of all time. Each of these players/team have numerous related articles, which were linked in the analysis by Nigej. One of the only two delete votes, by Fyunck(click), was explicitly "delete most", not delete all. I therefore request that the deletion of these 4 templates be overturned. This is not an endorsement of the current formatting of the templates, which certainly can be improved/reverted to a superior state. Sod25 ( talk) 06:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Two things. To be honest the next ones to go up for deletion should be Federer, Serena, Nadal, and Djokovic. I would get rid of all of them! Or perhaps put them back to text only and cut them down by 90%. If they fail to be deleted by consensus then I would relook at this list and keep all but Osaka. She's a blip on the radar compared to the rest. Earning s isn't enough... heck in ten years a player on the tour for one season and winning one event will have earned more then anyone ever. There have been scores to 100s of players more accomplished than Osaka. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 07:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  Agree with trimming down by 90%. We have many navboxes for the top athletes in sport in Category:Sportsperson navigational boxes, so we should not delete e.g. Federer's when he has so many related articles. Osaka while not in the league of Navratilova/Evert achievement-wise, is leagues ahead marketing-wise, with e.g. her own series Naomi Osaka (TV series). That's why I would keep her template. Sod25 ( talk) 07:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Fyunch(click) explicitly said I would get rid of all of them for all players... even Roger Federer and Serena Williams. and nowhere implied that the "delete most" bold statement meant "delete most... [of those listed in this discussion]" given the above quotation. Hence, deletions for all those listed. I have no other comment. -- Izno ( talk) 07:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  Your close was perfectly reasonable given the participation at the discussion, I should have explicitly said that, sorry. I will not speak for Fyunck(click), but my interpretation was that given that the bulk nomination didn't include all player navboxes, and therefore we would be keeping the very top players' templates at least for now, he would delete most but not all of those listed in the discussion, e.g. keep Chris Evert's. Sod25 ( talk) 07:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  Yes, I wasn't meaning to suggest that my close must have been reasonable. ;) Izno ( talk) 08:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Personally I wouldn't be against recreating these (except perhaps Osaka), as long as they were turned into genuine WP:NAVBOXes, focussed on navigation. It's worth noting that we don't have categories for any of these (see Category:Wikipedia categories named after tennis players) and a category could be as useful a way of grouping articles relating to these topics, as a navbox. I'm generally of the view that we should be creating categories for these sort of things before we create navboxes. Nigej ( talk) 07:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  Categories have been created for all of them now + Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lenglen & Agassi. Sod25 ( talk) 10:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• One thing I'll add is that the templates requested for review don't fit the requirements for navboxes. For all of them, there were few or no articles outside the main subject, the tennis players. The other remaining templates for tennis players should be looked at whether they should be nominated or be kept. However, all those that have been deleted and are currently around should probably remove all links to the tournaments and events these players appeared in. Victories are more important to the subject at hand than just appearances. However, creating the categories are not a bad idea, but at the moment the cats are the best way to navigate between articles. Some don't even have more than the basic five links needed for a navbox, but even if they do meet the basic requirements it still doesn't seem to deserve one because there might not be enough to connect to the overall tennis player subject. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 17:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Relist - The dispute should have been relisted for a clarification of what the exceptions were to deleting the templates. In view of the number of templates and the complexity, it should have been left open for longer than one week, and still should be open for longer than one week. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  There's nothing complex about a dozen navboxes all of the same character, and all !votes were to delete, with no reason to expect exceptions in the statements of the participants. Feel free to !vote relist, but please find a better rationale. Izno ( talk) 05:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• When I see a DRV like this, which contains little analysis of the close but a lot of arguments that could/should have been made in the TfD, what I see in it is that the community hasn't finished talking about these templates. And I can see an arguable case in our rules about why we should have them:- categories exist, and per WP:CLN, where there's a category, a navigational template is also usually appropriate. As far as I can see I don't think these templates were navigational when nominated but they could perhaps be converted by individual editors. Izno, would you be willing to consider unbundling just these four and relisting them? In asking this I don't mean to imply that there was any problem with your close, I just suggest that in all the circumstances it might be reasonable to allow the community more time to noodle.— S Marshall  T/ C 22:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  I have no objection to reopening an XFD for any templates listed in this DRV or any of those listed in the original XFD, but would prefer DRV run to conclusion in lieu of further action on my part. Izno ( talk) 06:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Relist these templates. The case that the group nomination was right is contested. I am not sure a relist will change the result, but TfD is the right place to discuss it. No criticism of the close. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Relist/Overturn I suspect that a second discussion will result in these being deleted, but the argument that these 4 should not be included in the consensus of the first bulk nomination is valid. However, we should not re-open the original bulk nomination -- the closer here can either overturn (with NPASR) or create a new discussion for just these 4. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 23:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Pawandeep Rajan ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Pawandeep Rajan is a famous singer and musician of India and has done notable work outside of Indian Idol. He deserves a seperate article on his name. So my appeal is to remove the redirect and restore the previous edit. Matu11 ( talk) 17:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• While it does not require a deletion review to undo a redirect, I'd like to see some more information and three verifiable sources that help us understand why Mr. Rajan is notable. Stifle ( talk) 16:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse or Allow Creation in Draft - The close was correct. Robert McClenon ( talk) 07:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The nominator has provided no evidence for his claims. Encourage the use of the talk page of the redirect target, Talk:Indian Idol, to present the evidence to justify the WP:SPINOUT and consensus to reverse the redirect decision. Do not use draftspace for spinouts, unless agreed to do so at the talk page of the redirect target. There was no deletion, so this does not belong at DRV. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply

James Cook (footballer, born 1885) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

None of the keep votes (all eight of them, which are all essentially a variation of "passes NFOOTY") were valid, on grounds of policy (as NSPORTS states quite obviously that meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb [...]) or factually (as shown by the delete arguments, the football leagues at the time were not "fully professional", so this isn't even a case of "fails GNG but meets overly broad SNG", but actually "fails both"), and these should have been disregarded by the closer (as this is WP:NOTAVOTE, even if the majority of participants, many of them also only making vague waves, decide to disregard existing policy). A failure to meet GNG overrides special pleading that the subject "meets NSPORT", even more so when the subject does not actually meet NSPORT. Overturn to delete RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 15:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 16:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close - there was clear consensus that this individual was notable and merited an article; this is a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, first demonstrated by opening a second AfD immediately after the first was closed. I have !voted in many AfDs that a technical pass of NFOOTBALL is often insufficient; this is not the case here. This is a player active over 100 years ago, so there is seemingly no online coverage, so the presumption of notability granted by NFOOTBALL (backed up by the fact this player had a lengthy career with multiple games) is stronger. Giant Snowman 16:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  The presumption is not stronger whether the player is from two millenia or two days ago. We keep articles because we know they have sources, not because we assume they have, without having seen them. Any claim that sources exist must be verifiable, and unless you can indicate what and where the sources are, they are not verifiable. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 16:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  But there are sources already present which demonstrate this player was a professional athlete (meeting WP:NFOOTBALL), what is missing is the in-depth contemporaneous pieces which, unsurprisingly, are not online 120 years after they were written. I am happy to presume, based on what we know, that there was signifiant newspaper coverage in the 1900s about this person and he is therefore notable. No need to reply, you can badger somebody else instead. Giant Snowman 16:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  There are also sources which demonstrate that he was not a professional athlete (as argued at the AfD, football at the time was not truly entirely professional, especially not in Scotland), and there is also the fact that newspaper coverage in the 1900s about sports is far less than what is produced in the 21st-century. The keep votes (many of them nothing more than true votes with a mere vague wave at "passes NFOOTY") should have been discounted. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 16:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  Playing in the Football League confers notability per NFOOTBALL (see WP:FPL); this player played in the Football League; the player therefore meets NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  Nothing confers notability, it still needs to be demonstrated when challenged. Deliberately ignoring that the football leagues were not fully professional back in the 1900s is nothing but disingenuous. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 13:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  Might I remind both of you that per WP:DRVPURPOSE we are not supposed to be relitigating issues discussed in the AfD, merely determining whether the closer correctly identified consensus based on what was already discussed there? Smartyllama ( talk) 14:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  RandomCanadian is correct. The SNG does not bestow notability; only substantial sourcing can do that. Reyk _YO! 01:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close but relax renomination period - Fenix down's close was reasonable: while the delete arguments were generally stronger, there were far fewer of them and there seemed to be faith on the keep side that the sources were out there. We also have a situation where there is some lack of clarity as to what the "presumption" that sources exist mean in the context of an AfD. Let's wait a month before renominating this one: that will allow the dust to settle on the Pete Vainowski DRV. — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  Wikipedia is not a religion. Whether there is "faith on the keep side" or not does not alter the fact they were not able to present any such SIGCOV. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 16:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• One sentence further into my endorse rationale sees me argue that there is not yet a consensus about the need to present SIGCOV in the short time period of an AfD. Waiting a month gives the policy discussion a chance to advance a little further before the AfD is renominated. I hope that we see some workable compromise emerge on this issue. I have a couple of ideas. — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• After four weeks the policy might have been tightened or clarified, and there will have been an extra month of fruitless searches for sources on this person, but none of that will prevent people screaming WP:NOTAGAIN if it's renominated. Reyk _YO! 01:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, per GiantSnowman. This 8-4 keep-delete AfD was closed correctly as keep in my opinion (unlike Pete Vainowski). BeanieFan11 ( talk) 16:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • While bringing up other AfD outcomes seems to me an unhelpful tangent, if this is to help illustrate that your position is "just count the votes", perhaps you should consider an RfC on WP:NOTAVOTE? 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 01:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close Yes the age of the player the biography is for is thin, but there is a process wikipedia football project goes by and the article certainly has issues, but that doesn't need to be addressed this way. This ending up at DRV in order to delete it. This is everything wrong at wikipedia. The article can be improved I am sure with the right research. Govvy ( talk) 16:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Can you clarify what that process is? Is it one that at some point terminates, if GNG can't be satisfied, and declares that the presumption of notability has been overturned? 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 01:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Forget the clarify, Are you a Canadian in Ireland?? Editing from an IP always is a red flag to me. Govvy ( talk) 11:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply

      Please strike your unfounded and frankly spurious accusation of sockpuppetry. It's not called for here. The IP editor in question has edited prior to this discussion. WaltCip-( talk) 14:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply

      • No thanks, and welcome to red-flag society! :/ Govvy ( talk) 14:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply

        So are you now saying there is a red flag on me?? Is that how I read your comment? WaltCip-( talk) 16:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply

        I further demand that the aspersions of Canadianness also be struck! (Joking, joking.) No, I am not, nor am I a tactically or purposefully signed-out editor. Will you now address my original question, please? 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 01:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse merely on the fact that we're still litigating through Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2022_January_11#Pete_Vainowski, and this is just throwing gasoline on the fire. I'm not opposed to re-visiting this article, just please not now. Curbon7 ( talk) 00:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Especially if the NSPORT criteria changes, per your proposal at the Village Pump. Curbon7 ( talk) 00:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • I think this is more exactly a tertiary fire from that one! (Via the latter.) 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 01:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, deletion process has been properly followed, and this is uncomfortably close to WP:POINT. Stifle ( talk) 09:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse arguments based on the subject passing subject-specific notability criteria and the likelihood of sources existing are reasonable and should be taken into consideration (the latter per WP:NEXIST). Unless these arguments are disregarded or massively downweighted that discussion couldn't be closed as Delete. Hut 8.5 12:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse It is the job of a closer to assess consensus, not to impose their own viewpoint. In this case, consensus was to keep. While that consensus may have been misguided, it was indeed consensus and there's no other way this could have gone. It's not the closer's job to impose their own view, nor is it our job at DRV to do so. Smartyllama ( talk) 14:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close aligned with consensus. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 02:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist - the keep !votes simply citing NFOOTBALL ought to have been disregarded, given that they were factually wrong and in any case NSPORT is subordinate to the GNG. Apart from anything else this was a poor closure because discussion around the rather scanty sourcing was still ongoing. Admittedly the article has improved since I and others ferreted out those passing mentions at the AfD. Some experienced WP:FOOTBALL editors then appear to have woven quite a clever cocktail out of them (exactly like the WP:NFL guys did with Pete Vainowski) to create, on the face of it, a functional article. The problem is I think they've covered WP:V but still have work to do in terms of WP:N. There's been a decisive result in the Vainowski DRV now and we can't ignore its applicability here. It also has to be said: for several years now this closing admin has been WP:FOOTBALL's in-house AfD closer – supervoting, disguising !votes as re-listing comments etc. Bring back Daz Sampson ( talk) 13:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment This DRV consensus is wholly inconsistent with Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2022_January_11#Pete_Vainowski, which is a major issue to me. Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 23:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist per nom, or in the alternative renominate expeditiously per chalst's rationale if not improved in the next month or two. "Keeps" (with one "weak" exception) make no attempt at all to address actual rather than presumed notability at all. "Per the aspects of this guideline I like, ignoring what it actually says." Not at all satisfactory. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 01:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse for two reasons:
  • The close correctly reflects a consensus, and it was not and is not the job of the closer to supervote when they disagree with consensus.
  • I have the minority viewpoint that general notability is a troublesome guideline when special notability guidelines exist, and that special notability guidelines should stand on their own rather than being presumptions only. We have a verifiable source that the subject satisfies association football notability, and that is what we should be asking. Robert McClenon ( talk) 08:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I disagree with the appellant's RFC, but the RFC is a better way to change policy or to rectify a policy ambiguity than a piecemeal attack by deletions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 08:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • But... there's no actual ambiguity here. NFOOTY presumes notability, but expressly doesn't establish it without GNG. You're precisely doing the "piecemeal attack" on the P&Gs by suggesting people simply "!"vote otherwise, then insisting the closer just tally those and close accordingly. We could just have a script for that, if there's no role in determining if the consensus is in line with policy. Or indeed with "just" guidelines, as in this case. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 08:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse When there's a rule of thumb presuming notability , it indicates notability unless proven otherwise by a comprehensive search covering al likely sources, demonstrating that no adequate sources can be found. It shifts the burden to the person trying to show the presumption is wrong. Thats rth=the normal meaningof the words, as well as the customary legal meaning. ``— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG ( talk • contribs) 10:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • That's an extreme maximalist -- and frankly, pretty wikilegalistic -- interpretation of the meaning of the word. Here's an actual normal one, as found in the wild: "an idea that is taken to be true on the basis of probability". When our guideline says "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline", are we to stare in "... but it's also fine if we just argue 'can't prove a negative!' ad infinitum". Editors should have the responsibility to provide proper sources for material they wish to introduce. "Shifting the burden" anywhere else is exactly the wrong approach. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 21:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse for all the same reasons Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 11#Pete Vainowski should have been closed as overturn. Jclemens ( talk) 06:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • So thus actually overturn, for all the same guidelines-based reasons it wasn't? 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 21:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Yeah. Sure. Adding snark in response to others' comments really demonstrates that your position has merit. How could I ever have held the other opinion? Oh, wait, that's because I've been around for a bit. You? Jclemens ( talk) 06:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC) reply
      • So now even resorting to an argument from authority? The IP's right that the other DRV does show how the endorse (and the "keeps" in the original AfD) are based more in wishful thinking than in actual Wikipedia policy (which does not, as far as I know, have any exemption for sportsmen [because we all know this rarely applies to sportswomen] to have an article even if they fail to meet all the other criteria). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 14:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC) reply
        • I'm unquestionably an authority on the source of my own opinions, which the IP address was questioning. Just like most of the policy-based arguments, a WP:VAGUEWAVE rather than an actual argument of the analysis and why it differs from that preferred. Oh, and WP:N isn't policy. Never has been. And silly, Procrustean debates like this are an excellent reason why not. Jclemens ( talk) 18:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Per WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS: Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. There are no violations of policy here, or any of the other reasons to discount !votes. The close correctly determined that more !voters applied one guideline over another.— Bagumba ( talk) 15:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious. In order:

  1. Contradict policy: Arguments that ignore the requirement for significant coverage which is necessary to achieve WP:V and WP:NOR (those who claim that "passing NFOOTY" is enough)
  2. Are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion (and are in fact in direct opposition to established facts): those who claim that the football leagues at the beginning of the century, in England and Scotland, were "fully professional"
  3. Are logically fallacious: those who claim "Sources must exist", but when asked to provide them, fail to do so and instead shift the burden of proof away.

  So yes, your unsupported assertion that there was "no reason to discount !votes" has just brillantly made the opposite point in a very concise manner. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 23:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  The need for significant coverage is from WP:N, a guideline, not a policy. A potential closer who has an opinion on an argument on whether a given league is "fully professional" should be !voting and not closing the argument and discounting !votes.— Bagumba ( talk) 06:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  "It's a guideline, not a policy" is about the most wikilawyeristic argument that could be made: in practice, GNG is widely followed, and no compelling reason was provided why this sportsman (or why any sportsmen at all) should be exempt from it. As for the league not being fully professional, that was clearly shown to be the case (with a well-sourced page on the issue) in the discussion. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 13:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  Surely a coincidence that ROUGHCONSENSUS mentions more on policies: Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable. The distinctions from guidelines are detailed at WP:POLICIES.— Bagumba ( talk) 15:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  You haven't got the point I was making. Whether something is a mere "guideline" or a "policy" doesn't mean you just get to throw it away whenever you like it (nor that you get to keep trying to interpret these as though they were a text of law - WP:NOTBURO). As for editors "preferring one guideline over another", well clearly NSPORTS itself says that it is subordinate to GNG (which is in any case much more strongly linked to the basic policies of WP:V and WP:NOR, by actually, you know, requiring actual sources and not mere databases); so those editors are wrong. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 17:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - difficult to see how else it could have been closed. Oculi ( talk) 17:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Explanation of my earlier endorse of the keep at afd.

1. There is no consensus about the applicable policy, so it has to be determined at each afd. The proof that there is no consensus is the extent of arguments in each direction, and thecontinuing inability over theyears to find a clear statement--cases like this are continalyy argued with variable results, and no clarify position otherwise haas has consensus. My own view is that the statement at hte top of the GNG page a topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

2 Even those who think there is consensus, recognize that guidelines are called guidelines because they can have exceptions--in this specific instance as an exception. As the box at the top of the guideline page says It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. "

3. The close in the review of the other article said the onus is on the side asserting sources to show they exist --this is correct in general, but not when there's a specific guideline that notability will be presumed if... the common meaning of presumed means that to defeat a presumption, you have to show it, and the burden shifts. The word "presumed" in the guideline at the top of the GNG page llinks to rebuttable presumption, which says a rebuttable presumption is an assumption made by a court that is taken to be true unless someone comes forward to contest it and prove otherwise. The guard against over-broad interpretation is that any article must still meet WP:V, which is indeed policy.

4. Personally, I disagree with the entire concept of GNG, because it comes down to arguments over whether coverage is "significant" or from a "reliable" source or "independent" , all of which which are equivocal terms. People argue at AfD by debating the meaning of those words, and depending upon what meaning consensus gives it, the result varies. In practice, most people seem within limits to pick the interpretation that gives them the result they subjectively want.

5 I should mention that I am making a general argument. In practice, I do not care in the least whether or not we have this particular article. If I were to maker a general statement about balance, I would say that we have too many articles on minor sportspeople, and should narrow DGG ( talk ) 17:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• @ DGG: I may be confused, but it does rather look like you've !voted twice in this discussion, once to say "endorse" and the other time to say "overturn"?— S Marshall  T/ C 18:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply

of coursei t was I who got confused--I'veclarified it. Thanks. `` DGG ( talk ) 20:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply

OK. There are many reasons why I disagree with you about this, but for the purposes of this debate I particularly want to take issue with point 3 where you say this is correct in general, but not when there's a specific guideline that notability will be presumed if... the common meaning of presumed means that to defeat a presumption, you have to show it, and the burden shifts. If that were true, it would place the burden of proof on the "delete" side to prove that sources don't exist -- deleters would have to show not absence of evidence but evidence of absence. I think that this would make it almost impossible ever to delete an article about a sportsperson on notability grounds.— S Marshall  T/ C 11:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and relist. The NSPORTS SNG is specifically subordinate to the GNG, so if we should have an article on this person, then it's for the "keep" side to produce two good quality, editorially independent sources and cite them.— S Marshall  T/ C 18:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete because of the following error by the closer: They did not take into account the strength and the nature of the arguments presented (as far as we can tell, because they did not explain their closure). Had they done so, they would have needed take notice of the fact that the "keep" argument was essentially "passes WP:NFOOTY". This is, in my view (and in the view expressed recently by this forum in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 11#Pete Vainowski) an insufficient argument in the face of a discussion that looked for and did not find substantial coverage of this person, which means that NFOOTY's presumption of notability was rebutted. The AfD would need to have been closed, therefore, on the basis on who made the most persuasive arguments on WP:GNG grounds (given that WP:NSPORTS explicitly also requires meeting GNG criteria), but the "keep" side had no arguments to make in this regard. Their view should therefore have been given substantially less weight. Sandstein 22:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • The problem with this is that the closer does have discretion to weigh the arguments and in all cases WP:IAR is still a thing. Even with our guidelines it seems people believe we should cover this. They are guidelines, not rules, for a reason. Hobit ( talk) 23:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply

    Yes, closers have discretion, but they need to exercise it in a way that allows the exercise of this discretion to be reviewed to ensure that the exercise of discretion was reasonable. We can't do that here because the closer gave no reasons for their closure, and the reasons are also not evident from the AfD. Sandstein 06:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

    Also, even if the closer thought that this was a case where IAR applied and rules had to be disregarded for the good of the project (which is at the least not apparent to me here), they would have needed to explain why they believed that to be the case so that we can review their reasoning. Sandstein 06:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• The instructions to closers do not mandate an explanation even in the case that the closer has to weigh up rival arguments, and reprimands at DRV made to closers in the past for not providing them at DRV have often been challenged by admins who say that requiring this would not improve AfD. I've taken this to mean the de facto practice is that admins have broad leeway, no duty to explain themselves, and we at DRV have to make the best of an often bad situation. I take it that you dispute that this is a reasonable view of DRV's task? — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• endorse NC or keep were both within discretion. I think NC would have been a more accurate description of where we are on this, but keep isn't crazy. A delete outcome would be given that discussion. Hobit ( talk) 23:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete None of the keep voters showed -- or even argued, for that matter -- that the topic meets GNG, and, since NSPORTS explicitly mandates GNG be satisfied, just about every keep vote should have been disregarded. No good reason was given to "ignore all rules" here, this is just an ordinary AfD in which ordinary rules apply. NSPORTS can't be "met" as that guideline is simply a supplement to GNG, and, since consensus of the participants was that that the topic fails GNG, the outcome should have been "delete". Avilich ( talk) 04:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment - as the closing admin I would have no problem with this being overturned. The comments above about no keep voters really making any attempt to address gng are correct. The problem I have, when the voting is as it was in this afd, the only other times I have been at DRV re entry is where I have tried to make an independent assessment of the strength of arguments made, I have been accused of WP:SUPERVOTE, so you're damned if you or damned if you don't. I this instance there is a clear consensus to keep but also there is a clear side with a stronger argument. Fenix down ( talk) 21:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

there is a clear consensus to keep but also there is a clear side with a stronger argument I think you have a mistaken idea of what consensus is... Avilich ( talk) 21:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• An alternative would have been to close as no consensus. In a sense this is right, since the keep !voters find reasons, whether based on inventive policy interpretations or IAR, to find the guidelines don't apply. No consensus allows a shorter period until renomination and allows the new nom a chance to bring together the delete rationale more forcefully and to pursue amendments to guidelines. It's less expedient than ignoring the keep opinions, but it's far more democratic. — Charles Stewart (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse per Bagumba and WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS. The distinction between guidelines (to which "occasional exceptions may apply") and core content policies (to which closers are obligated to defer) is a sound one, and hardly wikilawyering: as someone wrote way back in 2009, "The idea that guidelines overrides consensus is one that consensus is very much against". The keep !voters in this discussion made the hardly-unreasonable inference that sources do in fact exist (see WP:NEXIST), and there is no policy basis on which to discount those arguments without supervoting. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 04:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Deletion as justified by a lack of notability is policy, not a guideline, and the concept of a "hardly unreasonable inference" is laughable, as NEXIST counts for nothing if no verifiable evidence can be found. But even that doesn't matter, because ROUGHCONSENSUS says arguments "based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact" or "logically fallacious" are to be discounted (nothing there saying that guideline-based arguments are exempt). Misunderstanding how a guideline works =/= proposing an exception to it, and simply driving by and dropping a few magic letters ("NFOOTY") doesn't make your opinion worth anything. FOcusing on a technical difference between guidelines and policies, and not on the strength of the argument itself, it indeed wikilawyering/gaming at its finest. Avilich ( talk) 15:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to relist. Per Sandstein, the closer himself, and others. JoelleJay ( talk) 06:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• If overturned to delete, it would have to be restored as the current version is so much improved - an AFD of an article with 2 sentences and 3 references is not a reason to delete one with 11 sentences and 8 references. Not worth relisting, for the same reason. But there was consensus to keep, not to delete; arguments to make an exception as permitted by the guidelines are valid. A865 ( talk) 22:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Letha Weapons ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

When I created a page for John Wayne Bobbitt Uncut, I noticed there was no page for one of the actors, Letha Weapons. I was surprised that she did not have a page here, so I did quite a bit of research and crated one. This took me several hours, but I thought the page was pretty good, so I moved it from "draft". This evening I see that my new page was gone. I tried to discuss it with the admin who deleted my page, but they seemed unwilling to restore the page because a *different* page about Letha Weapons (not the one that I wrote) was deleted recently. I tried to follow up with them but they stopped replying. That discussion is here. Can someone please undelete the page for me? Thank you. Polycarpa aurata ( talk) 04:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I disagree that I was "unwilling". In fact, I offered to restore the page to your Sandbox on the condition that you submit it to AfC for review. That is a step that some admins would not be willing to do for an article that was recreated 11 days after an AFD decision to delete the article. I do not know why you didn't take me up on that offer and decided to come to Deletion Review instead.

And in terms of me "stop replying", you last left a message a few hours ago and I'm sorry but I don't drop everything I'm doing to respond to every message on my talk page. I have other responsibilities and since I was out of town for a few days, I've kind of fallen behind in some of them. I think you forget that we are all volunteers here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Liz, I am sorry if I seem impatient. I understand that we are both volunteers here. I read Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G4._Recreation_of_a_page_that_was_deleted_per_a_deletion_discussion. I don;t think you should have deleted my page. If there is something wrong with the page I created, I would have tried to fix it, but it seems like the only reason it was deleted was because a totally different page had been there before. Polycarpa aurata ( talk) 05:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

That is the basis of the CSD G4 criteria for speedy deletion. The speedy deletion tagging of recreations of articles deleted in previous AfD discussions occurs every day. I couldn't simply undelete your version of the article, especially for such a recent AFD discussion, the best I could do is to offer to restore it so you could submit it to AFC. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

"It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". I am perplexed how a page that I wrote from scratch, by myself, could be "substantially identical" to whatever was there before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polycarpa aurata ( talk • contribs) 05:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• I have reviewed the page as deleted on 8 January and as deleted yesterday. The content is about the same person. It meets the requirement under WP:CSD#G4 that "this applies to sufficiently identical copies ... of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion". The purpose of CSD:G4 is to ensure that editors' time is not wasted by repeatedly having week-long debates about the underlying notability of the subject of an article; once a consensus is formed then it should not change in the absence of new information, not just the same information presented differently. I am satisfied that the most recent deletion should be endorsed.
  The way forward, assuming the nominator wishes there to be an article about this person, is to present sufficient citations from reliable sources that mention the subject of the article in a substantial and meaningful way, not just in passing, so that the subject's notability is evidenced. WP:THREE is also worth reading.
  As a final aside, I would counsel our nominator here that not everyone is in the same timezone or has unlimited time to apply to Wikipedia, so a lack of reply for 4 hours should not be interpreted as "stopped replying". Stifle ( talk) 09:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • No objection to the content being restored in draftspace. Stifle ( talk) 11:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse G4 speedy deletion per Stifle's analysis. You'd be better of working with the AfC process, asking for AfC reviewers to look at your draft rather than moving it yourself: it's a bit slower (reviews typically take two to three months) but you get better feedback and declined drafts are not deleted so you can continue to improve them. It won't help, though, if WP:BASIC-quality sources are not there. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Can someone please put copies of the two pages somewhere so that I can compare them? Thank you. Polycarpa aurata ( talk) 15:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Liz, Stifle, Charles, can one of you please put copies of the two pages somewhere so that I can see them for myself? Thank you. Polycarpa aurata ( talk) 15:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm not an admin and can't do this. I recommend asking Liz on her talk page: ask to have both copies undeleted to draftspace or your userspace. It is courteous to blank drafts when you are finished with them. — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply

You contested my deletion and I consider myself "involved". I'd approach another administrator and see if they would oblige. I explained my decision and am otherwise staying out of this discussion unless any editors reviewing this decision have any questions of me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Charles, if you are not an admin, I don't understand how you can see the pages. If you can't see the pages in question, how can you possibly know if they are "substantially identical"? Polycarpa aurata ( talk) 16:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• I can't, that's why my endorse is "per Stifle's analysis". I don't agree with Stifle on all matters of deletion policy, but I trust him on this issue, judging whether the references in your draft count as "trivial coverage" in the sense claimed in the AfD nom. — Charles Stewart (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Charles, this isn't about whether the references are good enough. This is about the page I wrote being "substantially identical" to what was there before. I understand that the page might not be good enough and might get deleted anyway, but I find it *very* hard to believe that I accidentally wrote something that was "substantially identical". I spent a lot of time on it and I feel like I didn't even get a chance to defend it. Polycarpa aurata ( talk) 00:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• I'm not insistent on the "substantially identical" part of G4. There's been a long-standing discussion about relaxing this part of the criterion, to give admins more leeway to use G4 to uphold AfDs. Cf. Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 25#G4, AfD, DRV, and recreated articles. In AfC we have an alternate process for creating articles, but if you simply move drafts into mainspace without going through AfC review, you're not working with the AfC process and you get the sharp end of our deletion policy. I have sympathy for your frustration, but because you are challenging the speedy without saying that you will work within the AfC process, I don't find any error in what Liz has done. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Charles, you are unable to see the page. You have no way to evaluate the sources. You are arguing a position that is counter to what the policy not only says, but emphasizes. Whether I have other options is irrelevant - I don't think my page should have been deleted. I don't mean to be rude, but if you can;t see the page, I don't know how you think your opinion is worth anything. Polycarpa aurata ( talk) 15:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• It's frustrating that the wording of policy doesn't exactly match up with how policy is applied, but see WP:NOTBURO: policy as much evolves to follow practice as guides it. Here the deviation between how G4 is worded and how it is applied arose a long time ago because deleted articles were being substantially rephrased to evade the "substantially identical" criterion. Attempts to fix the criterion to fit practice since have failed. Given what Stifle said about the state of the draft is true, which I have high confidence in, Liz's choice was between applying G4 or listing at an AfD that was almost certain to result in redeletion. The G4 speedy is more efficient and I weighed in with my 'endorse' opinion to support the expedient choice not to relist at AfD.

I do think your experience shows Wikipedia falling short: you didn't understand how real the risk of your draft being speedied was when you moved it from draftspace. But since then you've been legalistically pushing your for your text to be undeleted rather than taking Liz's good advice of working within the AfC process and you've won no concessions for yourself and made no allies. You're wasting your time. — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm not wasting my time at all. My whole experience on Wikipedia, including this discussion, has been most enlightening. Polycarpa aurata ( talk) 21:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• That's a good point. I'm also thinking of suggesting an improvement to the move message, which would also be a positive outcome. — Charles Stewart (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Overturn G4 on the basis that it wasn't substantially identical, else Stifle would have said it was instead of what he did say about it, but keep deleted as G10, which applies to un- or under-sourced porn bio's of living people. Jclemens ( talk) 06:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Jclemens, I read WP:G10 and it does not apply to the page I wrote. If you have not seen the page, why would you make such a negative assumption about its content? Polycarpa aurata ( talk) 00:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply

An allegation that someone is a porn star may be no big deal in certain circles, if not a mark of pride, but is viewed negatively enough widely enough that if it's not sourced well enough to be notable, WP:BLPDELETE applies. Jclemens ( talk) 03:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Jclements, I agree that an unsupported allegation that someone is a porn actor would be a problem. I assure you that is not the case here. Again, this page was deleted "speedy g4" not because of sourcing or notability issues. This is the second time you have suggested deleting a page that you have not seen for yourself. I do not understand why you are making such negative *assumptions* about me and about the page I wrote. Polycarpa aurata ( talk) 03:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Jclements, it has just occurred to me that perhaps you were making a joke and I missed it. If that's the case, I'm sorry. Either way, you should probably just Google Letha Weapons and set your mind at ease about possibility of mistaken allegations. Polycarpa aurata ( talk) 04:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Is either version of the article available for non-admin viewing? If not, I'd request temp undeletes of both. That said, I strongly strongly think any admin forcing someone to go through AfC is 100% in the wrong in all cases. AfC is a disaster with, as I type this, 500+ articles that have been waiting for a review for 2 months. That's not a reasonable direction to point anyone unless your goal is to just piss someone off. Hobit ( talk) 17:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Hobit, I don't see how you can view my recommendation to utilize AfC as "forcing someone to go through AfC". I offered to restore this page and move it into Draft space so it could be submitted to AfC because, in my experience, the only way for an editor to overcome a recent AFD decision to delete an article is to write a new, draft article and submit it to AfC for review and, hopefully, approval.

I have seen AfC approved articles still get deleted on CSD G4 grounds but they have a much better chance of surviving a move to article space and the new page patrol review if they have an AfC stamp of approval. It was a recommendation to the editor on what they could do to get an article on this subject into main space, I can't force anyone to use AfC and I'm not going to be watching this editor and their activities. If I see this article or a draft of this article again, I am not going to be involved unless the page becomes a stale draft because that is what I spend most of my time working on these days. I'm not the Wikipedia police or an enforcement agency. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Liz, I understand your position that the best chance to avoid deletion of the page I wrote is to go through AFC. You have a lot of experience here and I have very little, so I assume that you are right. That isn't what we're discussing here, though. You deleted my page as speedy g4 which doesn't say "this page will probably be deleted anyway". It says that the two pages need to be "sufficiently identical copies". It says that it "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". I find it very very very hard to believe that I accidentally created a page that meets these criteria. That is why I started this appeal. Polycarpa aurata ( talk) 00:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Liz: I have an issue with any admin who sets conditions on someone that involves using AfC. The process appears to be hugely broken and unreasonable to expect anyone to use. It feels like a police officer saying "I'll let you go if you promise to never drive down this road again". It's just an unreasonable condition IMO. Hobit ( talk) 17:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• This is unfair. Liz made an offer that was refused. She would have been within her rights simply to have denied the request. Liz's reasoning was sound: if the article is listed at AfD, as you prefer, it is very unlikely to survive. The relative speed of AfD might be seen as a kindness, but it is generally a more ruthless process that is not focussed on salvaging content. — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• I get that viewpoint. But the user likely doesn't realize that AfC is going to be a dead end, and now they are committed to using that (broken) process. It's not a nice thing to do to a new user and I feel no admin should be doing this. Hobit ( talk) 22:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Overturn G4 non-admins (including me) can't see them, but I've not seen any claim that these are largely "identical copies". Given that the creator of the second version says they created it from scratch, I'll AGF that that is true. I can't judge the sourcing as being similar, but no one has mentioned that either way. If some other speedy criteria applies, use that. But otherwise overturn and list at AfD. Hobit ( talk) 17:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Yeah, now that I can see both, I don't see how G4 applies. It specifically "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". These are quite different in terms of sourcing etc. I suspect it won't make it at AfD, but it isn't a G4. Hobit ( talk) 22:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment I have temporarily restored 2 versions, the one sent to AfD on Jan 1, 2021 and the one replaced after the afd on Jan 18, 2022. Normally , I'd restore the entire history, but I think this meets the needs. The earlier rev del version has not been restored. I have no opinion whether we should have an article--I do not work in this field. I am undecided whether the recent speedy as re-creation was justified--our practices for dealing with recreations of deleted articles are variable. DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks DGG! Hobit ( talk) 22:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse G4. I note that the wrong version seems to have been temp-restored; the ostensibly different one is the one of 18 January 2022, at 16:11, by Polycarpa aurata. But in my view this version is still sufficiently similar to the previously deleted one to allow deletion per G4. That is because it is not readily apparent from the new version that the problems that led to deletion (lack of coverage in good sources) has been remedied. The additional sources cited still appear to be a combination of porn industry sources, tabloid-type sources, and passing mentions in more reliable sources. Polycarpa aurata does not explain, above, how these sources improve the article sufficiently. Sandstein 07:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Sandstein, I don't explain how the sources improve the page because I had nothing to do with the previous page or its deletion. This is a new page I researched and wrote from scratch. Your link doesn't work for me. Can you place a copy somewhere so that I can see it? Thanks. Polycarpa aurata ( talk) 16:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Sandstein: G4 specifically says it "... excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". A new article, with new sources, is somehow "substantially identical?". G4 is not a "it was deleted before and this version doesn't look better" rule. It really isn't and it says so clearly, yes? Do we really need to hold an RfC on the meaning of "substantially identical"? Hobit ( talk) 23:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Hobit, "substantially identical" is not the same as "identical". What matters is whether the "substance" of the article is the same, and this, in my view, has nothing to do with whether it was written by the same person, or whether it uses the same wording. Rather, the "substance" of an article, in the context of deciding whether to delete it or not, must be taken to mean, in my view, the characteristics that determined whether it was deleted the last time. And these characteristics (i.e. very poor sourcing) have remained the same in this case. Certainly there is always a point where reasonable people could disagree whether these characteristics have changed, and then a new AfD should decide this question. This article is a borderline case in this regard; I'd probably not have G4-ed it but referred it to AfD. But I think that a G4 deletion was not entirely out of the question either, also considering WP:SNOW: if we are almost certain a recreated article wouldn't survive AfD, there's no point wasting the community's time with it.

@ Polycarpa aurata, the article is deleted, which is why you can't see it. You'll be familiar with the version I linked to, it's the one you recreated. Sandstein 06:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

No, Sandstein, that's not what "substantially identical" means. At all. Similarity of content is explicitly separate from similarity of deletion rationale by CSD G4 itself. The more complete quote is "It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, [...]" Your argument is that it isn't text-identical, but the same deletion rationale applies, clearly placing it outside of G4. The point of G4 is that trivial changes to the text do not make a different article, and your interpretation has no merit logically or linguistically. I suggest you spend more time familiarizing yourself with actual Wikipedia policies, rather than your interpretations of them, because you seem to be deviating markedly and repeatedly from the community's consensus that you're supposed to be implementing with the admin tools that have been entrusted to you. Jclemens ( talk) 07:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Yeah, just echoing Jclemens here. The wording is pretty darn clear. The word "substance" isn't here. It's "substantially identical". If the intent was "the sourcing isn't better" it would say that. It does not. Hobit ( talk) 15:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Overturn G4 This would definitively require an exceptionally wide stretching of the meaning of "substantially similar" to actually meet that criteria (the content is differently organised, the newer version contains elements not in the older one, only very few sources are even shared between the two versions). However, to avoid needless further bureaucracy, Draftify as the issues of the AfD haven't really been addressed despite the substantial changes (much of the article is based on an interview, for example; and some of it is based on unacceptable sources like IMDB). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 05:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Procedural overturn - It's not a G4 and looks to me like a good faith attempt to address the problems which led to the deletion. By the sounds of it there's enough in there which wasn't present in the deleted version. It obviously makes a new assertion of importance and the proper way to test that (if desired) should be another AfD, not AfC. Bring back Daz Sampson ( talk) 20:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I started this deletion review because I believed that the page I created was deleted in error. After seeing the two versions of the page, I am sure that the page should not have been deleted "speedy g4". I also understand from comments made here that the page would likely be deleted if it were restored in its present state. If an admin can restore the page to my sandbox, I will continue to work on it there before resubmitting it. For the record, I am *not* withdrawing this review request. I would like it to be acknowledged that the page should not have been deleted in the first place. Polycarpa aurata ( talk) 22:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Overturn G4: not substantially identical. The new version seems to have new sources, and while they don't seem very strong to me, that's ultimately a question for a new deletion discussion to decide. I agree with RandomCanadian that draftification would probably be prudent: while the most recent version is outside the scope of G4, it's probably quite unlikely to survive AfD. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 04:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Himachal Pradesh ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

I would like to see this revision deletion reverted. It was done per WP:RD1 to remove a small amount of copyrighted text. Given that the copyvio was noticed relatively late, this resulted in the deletion of a large number of intervening edits and obscured the provenance of a decent amount of newly added content.

This is against current policy: see Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion#RD1, attribution and intervening edits for the details, including a caveat about a novel interpretation that – if adopted – could result in a change to those policies. But even if that were to happen – so far there has been zero indication of that – this revdel would still likely appear as disproportionate. That's because in order to completely expunge less than 0.7 kB of copyvio text, it resulted in the deletion of about 60 intervening edits and so has erased traceability for the numerous changes introduced in them, as well as for the 2.5 kB of text that they added. – Uanfala (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• I don't think there's anything we can do about incorrect use of revdel: per WP:REVDEL#Appeal and discussion of actions, "[s]uch a review should take place at the Administrators' Noticeboard". I do agree that deleting 61 revisions is a questionable large-scale use of revdel, although it may well be within discretion nonetheless. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • WP:XRV might also be a reasonable location--it's not listed on the things that belong there or the things that don't (I don't think). But yeah, DRV is the wrong place I'm afraid. Hobit ( talk) 18:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• This is an example of one of several ways in which Wikipedia's policies relating to copyright are in fact unworkable and self-contradictory. If I find text which infringes my copyright, I can legally require all versions of the page in which it appears to be removed from public view. However, Wikipedia policy is that history should be kept, to enable us to know which editor wrote which part of the page in question. It isn't possible to satisfy both requirements. Personally, if I see a relatively small copyright infringement which would require the loss of dozens of revisions in order to remove it, I normally leave it alone, unless it seems to me that there's some reason why it's particularly problematic. However, once the content has been removed, I absolutely would never restore it, no matter what Wikipedia policy or consensus among editors might say, because if I did so I would be knowingly breaking the law. Also, I wouldn't recommend that any other administrator do so either. The law has to take precedence over what a group of Wikipedia editors think. That doesn't mean that I'm happy with the situation, but it seems to me that that's how it is. JBW ( talk) 19:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I've no idea what was there, but copyright law (in the US and in general) isn't black-and-white. Unless this was a huge portion of the original work it is very likely it falls under "fair use". I feel like I should give a Wiki-seminar on the issue some day. Or maybe I'll write an essay. But no, it's almost certainly not breaking the law. Hobit ( talk) 20:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Draft: Ade Bajomo ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

The original text was written by me and submitted to the webpage https://endeavornigeria.org/ade-bajomo/ i have evidence to prove this -- Timone13 ( talk) 12:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC) 1/18/2021 reply

• Comment - Shirt58 handled this deletion, who I hereby notify. Timone: are you familiar with WP:DCM? — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. Timone13 is, of course, welcome to provide evidence of being the copyright holder, and if so to licence it for free reuse, but at present that hasn't been done, and unless and until it is, the page must remain deleted. Information about how to donate copyrighted material is provided on the page linked above by Charles Stewart, and an editor simply saying that they hold the copyright isn't enough. However, in my opinion a more important point is that even if copyright permission were properly provided, the material would still be unsuitable for Wikipedia, as it is far too promotional in character. My advice to Timone13 is that a better way forward is to forget about seeking to have this undeleted, and about providing copyright release, and instead just rewrite the information in a new non-promotional form. JBW ( talk) 15:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse basically per JBW: the content would need to be compatibly licensed before it could be used, and in any event we are an encyclopedia and thus don't really want promotional material copied from an organization's website, regardless of its copyright status. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 00:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Aye, the content in question would need a licence before we can use it, it's not sufficient to simply assert it. Also, most of the text is quite promotional and would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic to the point that it borders on being eligible for WP:CSD#G11. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 13:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

WP:test123 ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

The page was deleted by G2, but it was not used for testing, and it should be redirect to WP:sandbox.-- Q28 ( talk) 11:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

To what useful purpose? Sandstein 12:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

First, you requested create protection at WP:RFPP. When this was declined for a lack of recent creations, you created the test page that qualified for speedy deletion as, well, a test page. When the test page was deleted, you created a WP:RFU request. When this was declined because of the speedy deletion criterion that led to deletion, you immediately started a deletion review. What is the next step? A thread at WP:AN about the result of this DRV? ArbCom is over here by the way. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 19:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - It looks like a test page. It has 'test' in its name, and the appellant wants to redirect it to a sandbox, which is a test page. If the appellant wants a page that permanently redirects to a sandbox, they can use userspace for the purpose, where test pages are exempt from G2. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment - So what is it? A breaching experiment? Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment to User:ToBeFree - On the Internet, no one knows that you are being sarcastic. Please don't direct the appellant to ArbCom. Earlier this month, another editor was in good faith directed to ArbCom who didn't need arbitration. Wikipedia doesn't need frivolous requests for arbitration (or misguided ones). Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  Fair concern, sorry! For clarification, the idea of escalating this further and further, via AN and ArbCom, was an ironic attempt to display the absurdity of what has already happened. Neither having a discussion at AN about the deletion of a test page, nor bothering ArbCom with this, was a serious suggestion in any way. Especially the ArbCom idea is completely absurd. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 05:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Q28, if your request to restore this is granted, what do you propose to do with the page, and how will this benefit the encyclopedia? Stifle ( talk) 11:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  @ Stifle: Redirect to WP:sandbox and add automatic confirmation protection to prevent others from testing here again.-- Q28 ( talk) 06:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  Ah, so this is still about the protection. The protection was declined because there was no need for it; the last use as a test page was 2016-03-09. That is, until you disagreed about the protection decline so much that you created the page yourself. If I understand correctly, because creation protection wasn't implemented, you're now requesting for the page to be created and to be semi-protected. If you are looking for more productive ways to spend your time on Wikipedia, please have a look at the Task Center or the community portal. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 16:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment - It appears that the appellant is trying to play some sort of game with the community. The only real question is how loudly we should ignore the appellant. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, keep deleted, and salt- appellant is obviously upset about something, but this wastes people's time, and there are rules against disrupting WP to make a pointless for good reasons. The page was clearly a test page to which G2 applies. Reyk _YO! 01:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and send to RfD. The creator clearly did not intend this as a test; I don't think they are trolling, but rather is a little bit confused about how things work here because English is not their first language. I think they wanted to create-protect it in order to stave off people using the page to test, and then wanted to redirect it to direct people to the correct place to test in project space. This may or may not be a useful redirect, but the correct venue for determining that is RfD. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted. On balance, there is no benefit to the encyclopedia from having this page, nor from wasting yet more time having an extended discussion about the page. I would urge the nominator to refocus his efforts on improving mainspace articles rather than testing process to exhaustion on a matter of the utmost triviality. Stifle ( talk) 09:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Hariharan Pillai Happy Aanu ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Closed on the basis of no sources. A full review by The Hindu here. Full paragraph about the film's soundtrack here. Mention about production here. Mentions about box office failure here. Random other mentions here, here, here, here, and here. All of these sources (most from 2002-2004) existed at the time of the deletion discussion. DareshMohan ( talk) 02:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Recreation is likely the best option. No one found the sources in the AfD, so it was wrong on outcome, but not in procedure--there was time for someone to find them, but no one did at the time. With those sources, you can write a new article or get a copy of the previous text from any admin and add those sources. I would recommend sandbox development if you do that, and only move it back into mainspace once the sources have been added to the article, so that it is not prematurely nominated for speedy deletion. Jclemens ( talk) 22:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Allow Re-Creation as Draft - This appears to be a request to re-create rather than an appeal of any error by the closer, because there wasn't one. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation as draft, per DRVPURPOSE #3, significant new information has come to light. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• allow recreation no need for going through WP:DRAFT which has a huge backlog. Hobit ( talk) 18:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• This is out-of-date information. Most AfC submissions are being dealt with within two months. See Template:AfC pending submissions by age (category header) for the current breakdown. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation: Not in the draftspace. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Pantyhose_for_men ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Wanting a second discussion on this article's deletion. Page has barely improved on issues mentioned in deletion review since 2007 and still reads like a POV fork.

As Krimpet stated in the last deletion proposal, the author admits: "Why I created this article is the point that most men who wear pantyhose are not any more 'fetishists' or 'crossdressers', AND that pantyhose for men is an individual type of pantyhose just like stockings or leggings that may be separated from pantyhose."

The page exists simply to validate the author's point that pantyhose are not simply for crossdressers. I agree with this statement, but that's not what Wikipedia is for, and is not neutral. This is shown by the page's avoidance of mentioning sexual fetishism in much detail (which is likely a huge reason as to why most men are buying pantyhose), refusal to mention any societal pushback against men in pantyhose, and simply being made of flimsy justifications for male pantyhose being non-fetishistic.

"NFL Players wear them to stop from getting cold during winter games"...? No citation, and doesn't actually mention the most major tie between NFL and pantyhose - an NFL quarterback in a nylons commercial that had nothing to do with the usage of nylons in the NFL, notorious only due to men in pantyhose being hugely societally condemned at the time.

Apologies if the deletion tag on the article is incorrect: unsure about the policy when previously marked for deletion.

Purradiselost ( talk) 09:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

WP:PROD my not be used for articles which have previously been discussed at AFD and so I have removed the request. If you want to nominate this article for deletion see WP:AFDHOWTO. Thincat ( talk) 09:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Speedy close. This AFD was nearly fifteen years ago; the correct avenue to suggest deletion again would be WP:AFD. Stifle ( talk) 12:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Nicolás Atanes ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I have heard about Nicolás because he was nominated for the Navarra Television Awards, and I heard him on Cadena SER. He has appeared in RNE, in the Telediario, writes in Diario 16, has met with great politicians ( Mariya Gabriel, for example), and has been proposing educational changes in math for a long time. Without present biases, and with reputable sources, and surely more things that have gone unnoticed, I believe that Nicolás's Wikipedia article should be restored, and remain on Wikipedia. 83.53.76.219 ( talk) 17:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - No error by closer. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Procedural Question - In view of the ECP-protected status of the title, would it be better for any appeal on this title to be made by an extended-confirmed editor, or at least an autoconfirmed editor? Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, properly deleted at AfD. The sources offered do not obviously meet WP:BIO, many are not new since the AfD, they are all non-English, and DRV is not the right place to evaluate them. Is there an article at the native language Wikipedia? If it keeps getting deleted there, I don’t think it is ok to recreate here, especially without disclosing its history there. If anything, request WP:REFUND to draftspace and try to present a stub based on WP:THREE good sources. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse only possible close. While I can fault the AfD on some technicalities - there were guesses in the nom that were never substantiated, and a comment referring to sources mentioned in a previous AfD was never picked up on - the fact is nobody argued the subject reached our notability bar and several argued it clearly didn't. If 83.53.76.219 really believes a good enough article can be put together and is willing to invest the effort, I recommend asking for draftification and going through WP:AfC. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. No suggestion that the deletion policy has not been followed properly. Stifle ( talk) 12:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note The OP is a site-banned serial sockpuppeteer. This discussion should be closed per WP:DENY. (I've never closed one of these discussions before, so will leave that to someone who won't break anything.) Girth Summit _(blether) 15:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Everything Will Be OK ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This is an animated short film that was released theatrically in 2006 and was shortlisted for an Academy Award. It won the Grand Prize at the Sundance Film Festival. In 2012, Everything Will Be OK was edited into a longer feature film, along with its two sequels, under the new title "It's Such a Beautiful Day". The Wikipedia page for "Everything Will Be OK" has been nominated for deletion, to be merged instead with the page for the feature film version, "It's Such a Beautiful Day". I disagree with this deletion and merge. The short film has enough merit and notability to justify its own entry. It was released on its own DVD in 2007 and currently has over a million views as a standalone on YouTube. It's similar to a song like "Eleanor Rigby" having its own Wikipedia entry. This song could logically be merged with the page for the "Revolver" album but it's notable enough to merit its own entry. Ang-pdx ( talk) 01:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• I'm surprised that the discussion was closed with so little participation: indeed, I relisted an AfD from this same "batch" just the other day. I would be inclined to relist this one as well, on the theory that it's analogous to a "soft delete" that can be revisited if contested. (On another topic, I'm not too thrilled about the idea of proposing merges at AfD in the first place: WP:CSK #1 arguably allows such discussions to be speedily closed as keep.) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 03:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • As my comment above probably indicates, I would be just as glad for this closure to be overturned to speedy keep per WP:CSK #1. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 03:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to Relist as not enough input for a backdoor deletion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Relist would be the proper thing to do here, as the arguments above, if substantiated (and nothing in the AfD discussion suggests they wouldn't be) are excellent arguments for a standalone article. Jclemens ( talk) 07:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. This was a misuse of AfD. AfD is not Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers. AfD is not a suitable forum for disputed merging, or proposed merges where no one actually wants to do it. Interested editors should use Talk:Everything Will Be OK. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Insufficient consensus for a merge, and AFD should not have been raised in the first instance if deletion was not a potential outcome. Stifle ( talk) 12:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist. I disagree with SmokeyJoe's claim (to paraphrase, excuse me if I misunderstand) that it is never appropriate to go to AfD if you think merge is the best outcome: it's true that AfD discussions, in view of their time limit, can be problematic, but they can bring a broader perspective on the encyclopedic merit of the material than just the relevant talk page would. — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  It’s inappropriate to go AfD if deletion, even pseudo-deletion ( Wikipedia:Pseudo-deletion by redirection), is not seriously on the table. The AfD should have been closed Wikipedia:Speedy keep criterion #1. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• It depends what you mean by "on the table". It's fine to go to AfD and propose a merge if you think someone might come forward with a reasonable delete or redirect case, or if the article was previously AfDed/PRODded. I'm pushing back on your remark because I don't want these kind of generalisations to get crystallised into DRV wisdom. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  If the nominator makes no rationale for a delete, it should be speedy closed. The D in AfD is for Deletion. AfD is not the right forum for a more complicated merge discussion, the one week of of !votes is too simplistic. The fight forum is the article talk page. A disputed merge being reverted might be well discussed at AfD, but in this case the talk pages of the article and proposed target have not been used. You are proposing scope creep for AfD. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 19:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• While what you say about complex merges outgrowing AfD limits is quite true, there's no scope creep involved in what I say: I'm simply describing what actually happens on AfD. SK1 will not be invoked if the nom mentions potential grounds for deletion even if their nom actually goes on to favour merge or draftify. And the discussion can outgrow the confines of AfD even when the nom is leaving delete on the table: for a recent example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infinity plus one. — Charles Stewart (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  The AfD nom mentions not a hint of a deletion reason, and gives the obvious merge target. The obvious merge target means that the AfD WP:BEFORE check fails. It should not come to AfD, and if it does it should be closed per SK#1. If someone else gives a deletion reason, then they would be wrong, because there is none. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• I am at fault for the length of this digression: I agree in the specifics of this case, that an SK1 close of this AfD would have been appropriate at any stage, and I did not make clear that I was worried about a hypothetical case where the nom didn't seek deletion but SK1 was inapplicable. Apologies for not having been clear. I think we do not disagree on the scope of SK1. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  All good. You were saying slightly awkward things, and now it makes sense that you were thinking of hypothetical. I agree that a "merge or delete" nomination is good for AfD, if there is a rationale for why it should be deleted if it is not agreed to be merged. Indeed, it is fairly common to see a discussion split on "merge" or "delete".

  For this article, it was an awkward merge proposed, with no suggestion to delete if not merged. I think that User:HadesTTW should attempt to do a WP:BOLD merge, and most certainly should use the article pages before thinking of AfD, or even Wikipedia:Proposed_article mergers.

  -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

List of Simple series video games ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I believe this list is relevant and a good extension of the main article, Simple (video game series). It has a reasonable scope (games released under one budget line by one company). A main argument is that most of the individual items aren't notable, but per WP:NOTESAL and many other video game list articles, this is evidently not a problem in most cases. I would be willing to work on the article and make sure it's properly formatted and referenced (one of the points in brought up in the AfD I agree with) if recreation is allowed. I would also be fine with it being restored to draftspace until proper references are added.

The votes in the deletion discussion were 3 for deletion to 1 for keeping, with one editor commenting but not voting. RoseCherry64 ( talk) 19:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Could not have been closed any other way. Discuss improvements to Simple (video game series) at Talk:Simple (video game series), and I don’t think the is a case for at WP:SPINOUT of a list. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you endorsing that the entire list (90k and that's without references, would likely be larger after I finish improving it) should be at the Simple page and not a separate page?

I also don't understand the alternate process, if I start a RfC at the Simple talk page about recreating the deleted list article and the RfC finds consensus to do so, would I just show the RfC to an administrator and they would restore the page regardless of it being deleted through AfD? RoseCherry64 ( talk) 23:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I start with simple crude checks. Simple (video game series) is a short page, and you appear to have no edit history there. Talk:Simple (video game series) has a couple of posts from 14-15 years ago. You are advocating to reverse an AfD consensus for a list WP:SPINOUT that is completely unjustified. There is not justification in launching an RfC when there is not even a first talk page post. If no one answers, use WP:3O.

I suggest that you first work on improving Simple (video game series), especially work to add content on notable example games. Only when the article displays external interest on many of the games is there reason to think there is encyclopedic interest in the list of all the games.

I see external lists, eg en.everybodywiki.com/List_of_Simple_series_video_games, 2. This are directory lists, not notable standalone lists (see WP:LISTN). A separate page for a list will require a WP:SPINOUT justification and that most of the entries are bluelinked. I don't see you managing that.

You could ask for the deleted list to be REFUNDED to draftspace, but do that by asking the deleting admin, or at WP:REFUND, but that request is a very different thing to alleging that the AfD was closed wrong. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Well, I don't know where to go. I really have no idea where to start. I came across a page other editors poured a lot of effort into and that I have had a lot of use for being deleted and I spent some time looking how I could save it. If I need to expand or even rewrite the Simple article for this separate article to be considered, I'll do it. Since it got deleted through AfD, I figured REFUND is not applicable and I wanted to somehow get consensus about the article being reintroduced, so that it doesn't get speedily deleted for being a reposted article deleted through AfD.

However, I am really curious about the directory list requiring blue links thing. Is there a WP policy about this? Are lists like List of DSiWare games (North America) (most of the entries not having articles) considered standalone lists or directory lists?

Also, the two pages you linked are just WP mirrors of the deleted page. RoseCherry64 ( talk) 00:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Other stuff exists. These other lists may be deleted yet. Read WP:NLIST, and links from there, and consider that it was unfortunate that you tried to improve something that was hopeless. If you are really interested in the topic, surely you can find something to improve the parent article. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Not to be rude, but you didn't really answer my two questions. Is the myriad of video game lists directory lists or stand-alone lists? Is blue links really required for such lists (linking a guideline that outright says "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable" makes me think "no")? RoseCherry64 ( talk) 09:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

That’s ok, I didn’t answer because I am not sure. I got pretty deep into Wikipedia-Notabily theory, but I’m not so confident about lists. So let me give my best guesses. “Directory” is a reference to WP:NOTDIRECTORY. “Stand-alone” is just whether it is its own article, as opposed to a list in an article.

The first sort of list is a list that is notable as a list, eg List of regicides of Charles I, an historic actual literal “list”. The entries don’t have to be blue linked, but to keep things confusing, they usually all are.

The next sorts of lists are justified as navigation tools. See WP:CLS. The assumption is that every entry is a link to somewhere else.

The myriad of video games lists I guess are contentious. They are generally not ok, unless reliable independent sources publish and discuss the list. This tends to happen of popular singers’ discography, and might happen for a video game series. I am not aware of clear rules.

Some lists may be justified as being important content, but are shifted from the main article into a list article justified by WP:SPINOUT. WP:SPINOUT is never justified if the parent article is brief.

Back to your question, Does every entry has to be blue linked? I suspect that it might be only that most entries are bluelinked. I don’t know if there is such a rule written down somewhere. If the group or set is notable, that sounds like the list is notable, which means the entries don’t have to be bluelinked. I don’t think the list of simple video games is notable, and if you think it is, you need to show independent reliable sources that discuss, in depth, the list. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Lists should be populated by notable games and this series is unique in that it has vast amounts of non-notable ones. The most notable should probably be mentioned on the series page, but listing the rest is of no use to the average reader. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 07:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Gour Govinda Swami ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Multiple mentions in independent reliable sources (see [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]). More than satisfies WP:GNG. Dāsānudāsa ( talk) 12:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• @ Dāsānudāsa: Did you ask the closer to reconsider, first? I couldn't see so on their talk page, but wasn't sure if you did so elsewhere Nosebagbear ( talk) 12:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Ah, I didn't realise I was supposed to! This is my first deletion review request. I notified them of this discussion, but didn't ask for a review from them first, no. Dāsānudāsa ( talk) 12:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse based on the AfD. Advise the nom to ask the closer for a WP:REFUND to draftspace, to attend to the AfD criticism of sources, highlight the WP:THREE best, and ask again. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as a correct close by the closer, and Allow Re-Creation in Draft. Does the request for undelete the article go to the closer (as SmokeyJoe appears to be saying), or does the requester simply make the request at Requests for Undeletion, where it will be serviced by whatever administrator is working that queue? Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  Always ask the closer first, especially if as recent as it was, a week ago, and definitely if the thrust of the question is that the deletion was a mistake.

  There is no way WP:REFUND will grant a request to refund to mainspace over a recent AfD consensus to delete. They will probably Userfy or Draftify, if the applicant accepts the deletion but says there are new better sources. It’s then up to the deleting admin, of AfC reviewers, to judge whether the reason for deletion has been overcome.

  Bold recreation in mainspace is not ok under six months since the AfD. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • I agree with SmokeyJoe's statement of what constitutes good practice. DGG ( talk ) 10:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• I don't agree that there is an obligation to approach the closer about draftification, since automatic or unreasonable refusals to create drafts are a thing and once they have been made and refused, REFUND goes slower and has some risk of refusal. People who are willing to work within the AfC process should feel free either to approach the closer or REFUND, whichever they feel more comfortable with. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  If challenging the close, essentially accusing the closer of a mistake, you should always approach the closer. If you are TBANned from talking to them, ask someone else to ask them.

  If asking for draftification, there is no "obligation". But it is: polite; a good idea; likely to be more efficient; meets good practice for notifications, to involve the deleting admin.

  Some admins have a rule to not undelete, while others will userfy anything. If you know that your admin has a "no undeletions" rule, then this is a good reason to not ask a second time.

  If REFUND refuses a userfication or draftification request, then the refusal provides a reason to come to DRV. People should not come first to DRV on an unfounded fear that REFUND will refuse userfication or draftification.

  Maybe an efficient and most polite thing to do would be to post your draftication request at REFUND, and in the request WP:Ping the deleting admin. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse sound close, allow recreation as draft at REFUND if that is requested, per Robert McClenon. A straight delete-based-on-GNG-failure AfD is no reason to block AfC. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• As per the closer (@ Explicit:), an uninvolved administrator must first close the DRV discussion and then perform the action reflecting consensus. So are we agreed on a recreation in draft space, where I can then clean up the sources? Dāsānudāsa ( talk) 13:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Pete Vainowski ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Pete Vainowski was a star American football lineman from the 1920s to the early 1930s. He played at least nine seasons professionally, including one game in the National Football League (NFL) during 1926, thus satisfying NGRIDIRON, which states a player is presumed notable if they have played in the NFL.

Despite this, Vainowski was deleted in an AFD in which there were 8 keeps compared to just three deletes, marking the only time in Wikipedia's 20+ year history that a player in one of the "Big Four Leagues" (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL) was denied of an article when his professional career was known (excluding cases in MLB when the player had an unknown given name).

Vainowski was not a "sub-stub" existing for years without expansion. The article was in excellent shape at the time of deletion, and included over 15 references and was 7,000+ bytes. Keep !voter Cbl62 said in the discussion, "Passes WP:NGRIDIRON. This is not a sub-stub that has existed for five or ten years without any development. The article has existed for barely a year and should be given time to develop further -- the article has grown eight fold (from 200 characters of narrative text to more than 1,650) in the day since the nomination."

Unlike soccer/association football, in which players with one appearance in 50+ different leagues are routinely deleted after not even coming close to GNG, American football is different; NGRIDIRON is very tightly focused. As Cbl62 worded it: "The only players from the years prior to World War II who qualify for a presumption of notability are those from the NFL from 1921 to 1939. This in stark contrast to rugby and soccer, where we have SNGs that purport to establish notability for tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands?) of players who appeared in as little as one game in dozens of leagues at varying levels (top of the pyramid and on down to the middle of the pyramid) and for more than two centuries of competition. The rugby and soccer SNGs have resulted in a plethora of sub-stubs and have drawn the ire of many editors. While some sports have failed to properly tailor their SNGs, American football is not one of those sports. NGRIDIRON was tightly focused already, and in the past year we have narrowed it even further by eliminating the Arena Football League and squashing efforts to add the World Football League." In fact, the only leagues that pass NGRIDIRON are the Canadian Football League, National Football League, American Football League and All-America Football Conference (both of which merged into the NFL), and the United States Football League.

This is an encyclopedia, so why would we exclude an article on someone who meets the criteria of inclusion and has a high-quality page? This is a National Football League player article with over 15 references and a 7,000+ byte page. In addition to having played one game in a NGRIDIRON-satisfying league, Vainowski also played college football at Loyola and at least nine seasons professionally.

Furthermore, although source-wise there was not much significant coverage, there is a very reasonable presumption that significant coverage exists. As for coverage of that period and prior, it can be very difficult to find, as not all of it is online. Another issue with older coverage that I previously brought up in the discussion is that Newspapers.com has difficulty identifying results from that time, so even if it did contain the newspapers that significantly covered Vainowski, results may not show up through a simple search.

Additionally, although I know that the number of !votes does not matter, to see a "rough consensus" of "delete" in that discussion, you would have to literally get rid of every single "keep" !vote, which is not an accurate closure when they have policy-based arguments. All of the keep !votes cited NGRIDIRON, which states a topic is “presumed notable” if they have played in the NFL, CFL, USFL, AAFC, or AFL. Therefore, since he is "presumed notable," I do not see a reason to get rid of the article.

Several different editors have agreed that it was a bad closure (including two admins), which in addition to my reasons stated above, convince me that the Pete Vainowski AFD should be overturned from "delete" to "keep."

Pinging discussion !voters: @ Cbl62: @ Editorofthewiki: @ Rlendog: @ Nosebagbear: @ Metropolitan90: @ Curbon7: @ JonnyDKeen: @ Lepricavark: @ JoelleJay: @ Onel5969: BeanieFan11 ( talk) 03:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Nobody pinged the nominator, Reywas92. Avilich ( talk) 06:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and keep. To the extent that there was a consensus in the AfD discussion, it was in favor of keeping rather than deleting (and, by implication, relying upon WP:NGRIDIRON rather than failing to accept its presumption of notability). -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to keep. WP:NSPORT is pretty clear that it is an or with the GNG, which is what the WP:N itself says. Even if Sandstein disagrees with this, the controlling policy is WP:NHC "If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy." Jclemens ( talk) 04:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think that this is a case where two guidelines conflict and the question arises which one should apply. As explained below, the guidelines NGRIDIRON and GNG are compatible in my view, because NGRIDIRON establishes a presumption of notability that is nonetheless rebuttable (and was rebutted here) at AfD. Sandstein 07:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • NSPORT must not be at all clear, as what it says is expressly different from the above. "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline." (Emph added.) If the intent were "pass either NSPORT (or NGRIDIRON here in particular) or GNG", it should have said exactly the opposite. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 13:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

    The key is that it says "should meet the General Notability Guideline", not "must meet (now)". Per Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ#Q3, NSPORTS is ...meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist. For example, a 1930s subject could have less accessible coverage offline, that may be found in due time.— Bagumba ( talk) 08:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply

    I'd be more sympathetic to this if the "some buffer time" editors appear to wish to infer from were not seemingly indefinite. Evidently on the scale of years, at a minimum. If NSPORT were to in some general way set out a process or a timescale to be considered "due", that's be considerably more satisfactory than the present state of affairs, where some read this provision as effectively void, and others as it setting aside any sort of slack or benefit from the 'participation' element of the guideline. Absent this, I think it's more reasonable to draftify this sort of open-ended aspiration to SIGCOV. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 08:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply

    You can refer to WP:NSPORTS#Q4 for the FAQ on the timeframe: Q4: What is considered a "reasonable amount of time" to uncover appropriate sources? A4: There is no fixed rule, as it may differ in each specific case. Generally, though, since there is no fixed schedule to complete Wikipedia articles, given a reasonable expectation that sources can be found, Wikipedia editors have been very liberal in allowing for adequate time, particularly for cases where English-language sources are difficult to find. For a contemporary sports figure in a sport that is regularly covered by national media in English, less leeway may be given.— Bagumba ( talk) 08:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply

    My bad, I should have paid closer attention to that FAQ at time of making the above comment, having been pointed to it earlier. Trouble is, it's a very non-answer answer! At best it moves arguments about whether the presumption is trivially true or vacuously false, to ones about whether "adequate time" expired six months ago, or happens in a couple of decades. To my personal taste, a year of prior existence seems like plenty to either draftify, or at the least put on some sort of "improve or relist for deletion" workflow queue. (This may be the cognitive bias that creating to-do lists constitutes useful work talkung.) 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 08:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply

    Trouble is, it's a very non-answer answer!: Sorry, It's not my place to be in a DRV to rewrite guidelines. Hence, I am only citing the guidelines as written, and as the !voters interpreted them. It goes without saying that the oil goes to the squeaky wheel. Per the WP:FAILN guideline, good-faith actions to take to improve the article—before resorting to an AfD—include using the {{ notability}} and {{ expert-subject}} tag to request improvement.— Bagumba ( talk) 10:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  NSPORT doesn't actually contradict itself/GNG. From its FAQs at the top of the page:

  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.

  Here is my further explanation of that aspect of NSPORT in the AfD:

  Per NSPORT: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. In other words, the purpose of the SNG is so mass article creators can pad their stats quicker an article may be in mainspace sourced only to refs that verify the subject meets the SNG, such as databases, without the threat of immediate A7 deletion or AfD challenge. Other biographies with such sourcing should very quickly attract scrutiny from NPP/AfC reviewers/general patrolling editors, but if the SportsRef Stamp of Approval is there editors are much less likely to put in the effort to investigate whether the subject actually meets GNG. It also gives editors a bit more leeway with how long they can take to find offline/untranslated/etc. SIGCOV. But once notability is challenged, those who want to retain the article are expected to produce GNG sourcing or provide a very credible claim that SIGCOV exists (like pointing to a specific book that isn't accessible online but would be expected to contain adequate coverage). It seems editors trust GRIDIRON's predictive accuracy enough that NFL players are extremely rare AfD targets, but that doesn't mean they all actually meet GNG.

  This is why the "or" exists in the second sentence. JoelleJay ( talk) 17:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • There is a Q4 before the Q5 you cite, which explains Q5's "eventually sources must be provided ": Q4: What is considered a "reasonable amount of time" to uncover appropriate sources?...Wikipedia editors have been very liberal in allowing for adequate time...— Bagumba ( talk) 08:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Having reviewed the article itself and the excuses why a clear numerical consensus should be overturned as supposedly 'not policy compliant,' I remain unconvinced. Sandstein, I assess your close as failing to comply with half of WP:DGfA:
    • "2. Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants."
    • "4. When in doubt, don't delete."

  I don't see any logical way you didn't violate at least one: if you didn't have any doubts about the deletion, then you have disregarded the judgments of the (numerically superior) keep !voters. This is becoming a pattern of behavior inconsistent with deletion policy. While I appreciate your willingness to discuss your reasoning, your repeated failure to accept that consensus can differ and modify your pattern of closing deletion debates in accord with the community's wishes is concerning. Please do better in the future. Jclemens ( talk) 19:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• As closer, I remain of the view that the closure was correct. The above comments and the "keep" opinions at AfD would interpret the provision of NGRIDIRON that a player at a certain level is "presumed notable" to read as "is notable". But that is not what the guideline says. If the community had been of the view that any player at a certain level should be included irrespective of whether sources exist, the community would have written the guideline to read "is notable". But instead, they chose to establish only a presumption of notability, which implies that this presumption is rebuttable. And this means, in my view, that a valid argument at AfD must address whether or not that presumption has been rebutted in any individual case in which notability is challenged. That means that a valid "keep" opinion in this AfD would have had to cite sources that establish this player's notability in order to show that the guideline's presumption does hold in this case, rather than merely repeating the presumption. But most "keep" opinions in this AfDs failed to do so. As AfD closer, I am required to give less weight to opinions that do not provide valid arguments in the light of our guidelines and policies, which is what I did here by giving less weight to the (in my view) poorly argued "keep" opinions. Sandstein 07:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

If the community had been of the view that any player at a certain level should be included irrespective of whether sources exist, the community would have written the guideline to read "is notable". But instead, they chose to establish only a presumption of notability, which implies that this presumption is rebuttable.: That seems to overplay the significance of "presumed" to discount WP:NSPORTS. The close seemed to apply greater weight to WP:GNG arguments, which itself reads: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article ... Both NSPORTS and GNG are presumptive.— Bagumba ( talk) 09:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Watching but I have no opinion for now. Curbon7 ( talk) 08:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment (As I !voted, and I try to discourage participant DRV !votes). This is a clearcut example of votes being disregarded because they weren't being backed up by policy. None advocated an IAR position, just that Gridiron was sufficient. NHC is only the case where the pags do not themselves designate a precedence line. Everything else is said better by Sandstein directly above. Nosebagbear ( talk) 09:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

My extended comments at the AfD do, in fact, amount to an IAR position. Cbl62 ( talk) 00:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• More than 40% of Wikipedia's biographies concern sportspeople, and the reason why our encyclopaedia is awash with sports-related bios is because the sports notability SNGs are crazy inclusive. NGRIDIRON certainly is. But we have other rules that put a duty on sysops to delete biographical articles that aren't impeccably sourced, and rightly so. For these reasons I concur with the decision to delete. We do not have high quality independent sources of biographical information on this person so we can't permit a biography to exist.— S Marshall  T/ C 09:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Your comments (including "awash" and "crazy") suggest an antisports bias that may be coloring your opinion. As for NGRIDIRON being "crazy inclusive", I respectfully disagree. Unlike cricket, association football, rugby, and other sports, NGRIDIRON is limited to those who played in the top tier and does not include second- and third-tier professional leagues. Indeed, we have tightened NGRIDIRON even further over the past year, eliminating Arena Football League and rejecting a proposal to add World Football League. (A proposal (mine actually) to limit the guideline to those who played at least two games unfortunately failed to reach consensus.) Cbl62 ( talk) 00:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

As of the time of typing, Category:English chemists has 243 articles. Category:English physicists has 261. Category:English lawyers has 333, and Category:British Army generals has 2,549 (reflecting, no doubt, the diligent efforts of our sterling military history Wikiproject.) But in sports, Category:English footballers contains 23,226 articles. Category:English cricketers contains 13,580. How can this be? Is it because English football is ten thousand times as important as English chemistry? Are we, as a nation, perhaps, five or six times more important for our cricketing accomplishments than our military campaigns? Or could it just possibly be, do you think, that our sports notability guidelines might be ludicrously inclusive?— S Marshall  T/ C 01:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

What about Category:English players of American football, which contains just 47 players? Is that, "crazy inclusive"? BeanieFan11 ( talk) 01:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Yes. It's a microscopically niche sport here with zero following.— S Marshall  T/ C 01:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

[9]. That's about 8% that are fairly avid fans if it's right. Not a huge percent, but not nothing either. Hobit ( talk) 02:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Intriguing. I'll modify my earlier position to say that although we have a microscopically small number of players, teams, or pitches, it seems that some people who reside in England have watched it on late night TV during lockdown.— S Marshall  T/ C 10:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

:-) Hobit ( talk) 20:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

:-) It'll likely tick back down again as proper football resumes in earnest.— S Marshall  T/ C 00:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ S Marshall: Again, your comments belie an anti-sports bias. You believe that there should be more articles on chemists and physicists and fewer articles on athletes. That's your subjective value judgment, but your subjective belief is not how encyclopedic notability is determined. Rather, encyclopedic notability (i.e., WP:GNG) is determined by the coverage a person/topic receives. Like it or not, most people prefer to spend their free time reading about athletes (and people who I may consider to be trivial like "influencers") than they do about chemists and physicists. Given how GNG works, coverage determines notability, and public interest determines what gets covered. We do NOT have a notability system under which the "smart" people decide what the "common" people should read or find interesting. Accordingly, it is entirely right, proper, and appropriate that Wikipedia has far more articles on athletes than chemists and physicists. If you believe this system is "crazy" or "ludicrous", then your real quarrel is with how encyclopedic notability is determined. Cbl62 ( talk) 13:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

By "belie", I expect you mean "betray". Yes, I do believe that it's wildly disproportionate to have 261 articles about physicists and 23,226 articles about footballers. I wholeheartedly agree with you when you say that encyclopaedic notability should be the standard and the GNG should apply to everyone, and I very much welcome this statement from a pro-sports editor. I do hope this means that you have come agree with me that we should strictly apply the GNG to all sportspeople, and therefore deprecate all the special pleading in NSPORTS and its many sub-guidelines?— S Marshall  T/ C 14:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

You expect correctly ... Would you agree that GNG should govern all -- including academics? So how about deprecating NACADEMIC as well? Cbl62 ( talk) 14:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Just clicked on you profile and am surprised ... for some reason, I'd always assumed you looked more like Kristen Bell -- Forgetting Sarah Marshall ... a bit disappointing ;) Cbl62 ( talk) 14:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Tragically, I'm not a hottie.  :-) Yes, the GNG should govern the notability of every topic and particularly every biography of a living person, and yes, I have for years advocated that the GNG should trump SNGs in all cases. I think that if we required two high-quality indepth sources for every article then the encyclopaedia would be a better place. I also think that those websites that reduce to tables of sports results are not acceptable sources for biographies.— S Marshall  T/ C 16:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - while I stated my opinion on why it should be kept, which was based solely on WP:NGRIDIRON, GNG does trump SNGs. I understand Sandstein's reasoning, especially in light of S Marshall's comments above. In past years, simply establishing that something met a particular SNG was good enough, but that's been changing over the past 3 years or so. We've seen it in regards to GEOLAND, NCRIC, NBROADCAST, SCHOOLOUTCOMES and others. One SNG, NSOLDIER, was even deprecated. However, there are other SNGs which continue to trump GNG at AfD discussions, such as NSCHOLAR and NAUTHOR. And it all depends on which Admin does the close, everybody's human, and different folks will reach different conclusions based on the same evidence. But those are broader discussions. Sandstein's close, while I disagree with it, was clearly sound. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  GNG does trump SNGs: No, it does not automatically, per the top-level guideline Wikipedia:Notability (emphasis added): A topic is presumed to merit an article if...It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right... Similarly, WP:NSPORTS starts with (emphasis added): The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below...; it continues: ...meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion... !Voters don't have to blindly keep because an SNG is met, but they can decide whether it makes sense to use the SNG or not.— Bagumba ( talk) 07:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply

WP:NSPORTS#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? No. You're cherrypicking or misinterpreting the meaning of your quoted passages.. Avilich ( talk) 17:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Your "No" was actually A5: No; as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met... Please use ellipses. "Eventually" is already discussed at various places in the DRV.— Bagumba ( talk) 18:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Overturn like it or not, the longstanding precedent in this topic area is to retain articles that pass the SNG. The consensus at this AfD was consistent with that precedent. I understand that some editors are not happy with the prevalence of sports articles on the 'pedia, but a !supervote is not an appropriate way to spark change. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 13:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  In the last year or so a very strong precedent has been established that athletes meeting a sub-guideline of NSPORT but not GNG are not immune to deletion. AfDs where this has been the case and there has been substantial discussion and the closer reiterated NSPORT's relationship to GNG are spread across football (see closes by Fenix down 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; and by Ritchie333, and Vanamonde), cricket (see closes by Randykitty 1, 2, 3; and by Scottywong, Nosebagbear, Black Kite, Barkeep49, and Dennis Brown), MMA (see closes by Nosebagbear and Daniel), rugby (see close by Seraphimblade), and baseball (see closes by Ritchie333 and David Gerard). At this point the prevailing consensus (as supported by the wording of NSPORT itself as well as a 2017 RfC) is for closers to give little weight to !votes that merely state a subject meets a sport-specific guideline, and sometimes that means a close is against numerical consensus. JoelleJay ( talk) 03:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to no consensus. If the logic in the close is right, then arguments based on WP:NSPORTS (or, for that matter, most other SNGs) are essentially worthless the minute someone brings up the GNG, and the close doesn't make sense otherwise. This isn't the case and isn't in keeping with the community's view of SNGs. The close is also founded on the view that since nobody has found coverage passing the GNG then we have to assume the subject doesn't pass the GNG, which is incorrect. WP:NSPORTS is intended to indicate when GNG-passing coverage is likely to exist, and arguments based on sources being likely to exist are legitimate. WP:N says If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. The discussion could certainly have decided that sources aren't likely to exist and that the article should be deleted, but I don't think there was a clear consensus on that point, and that's a decision for the participants rather than the closer. Hut 8.5 13:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I would differ from this. Our verifiability policy says, at WP:BURDEN, that information that's been challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable source. Raising an AFD is a challenge; so per policy, only an inline citation to a reliable source will suffice. My position is that this "presumption" that sources exist cannot withstand such a clear passage in core policy.— S Marshall  T/ C 13:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • I don't believe there's any verifiability issue here - there doesn't seem to be any claim that the information in the article isn't verifiable to reliable published sources, and it had plenty of inline citations (mostly to contemporary newspapers). The argument for deletion was that there aren't any sources which devote significant coverage to the subject. That's not found in WP:V, it comes from WP:GNG, which isn't core policy. Hut 8.5 17:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  Cbl62 and to an extent Rlendog and Onel are essentially the only keep participants who explicitly argue SIGCOV sources are still likely to exist (rather than just asserting "meets NGRIDIRON" or "we've never deleted an NFL player before"). So if we only consider !votes that address this point, the consensus is actually numerically on the side of delete (where such (lack of) coverage is noted).

  I think it's also relevant to point out Geschichte's comment could be interpreted as an argument in favor of deletion, which brings the tally to 8k 5d. JoelleJay ( talk) 18:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  The point of NSPORTS (including NGRIDIRON) is to indicate when sources are likely to exist, I don't think it's a problem that not all comments spelled this out. Several of the Delete comments didn't explicitly mention SIGCOV either and just referenced the GNG, I don't think that's a problem either. Hut 8.5 19:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Overturn, I appreciate the point that the closing admin made and I do think that there needs to be a bigger discussion on WP:GRIDIRON, but Hut 8.5 and others make compelling points that deletion was not applied appropriately in this case. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Hi Gonzo, out of interest, how would you see this as distinct from "deletion was applied correctly, but a discussion should be had as to whether gridiron should be exempt from the NSPORTS norm?" What's the deciding factor (in terms of assessing policy-backed consensus/DRV review)? Nosebagbear ( talk) 15:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Nosebagbear, I think that we are constrained by our current policy and guidelines. So was this deletion applied correctly based on our current policies/guidelines? I don't think so. Should someone have a presumption of notability just because they played in the NFL, especially when they played during the early years of the NFL when it wasn't the same international league it is today. I don't know; I think that discussion should occur. Hope that makes sense. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply
      • Hut 8.5 appears to be be arguing that all of NSPORTS is "essentially worthless" -- as it's actually written, I've seen no argument made that the close interpreted it other than that. Just the "precedent" differs (see also: WP:OTHERSTUFF) and that NGRIDIRON is a special case, on the basis that it "only" has 32 teams with 53-person rosters in a single country. (In practice extending even beyond that, as players that have only ever been on an NFL practice are regularly declared to be obviously notable start-class articles.) That's sharply at variance from being "constrained by our current policy and guidelines", as far as I can tell. What's more, it rests on at least two different interpretations of what those guidelines should be, or should be read as being. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 17:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply
        • I'm not arguing that NSPORTS is essentially worthless, that's my paraphrase of what the close was saying ("If the logic in the close is right..."). I don't agree with it. Hut 8.5 17:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply
          • The "logic in the close" is literally just the text of what NSPORTS very clearly and specifically says. So either you're arguing for some other interpretation of NSPORTS that's too subtle for me to see (and that you didn't set out), that it should say something else (which you didn't specify), or that we should IAR in this case, and essentially in every case that this clause of NSPORTS applies to. Can you reconcile those in some way? 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 22:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - the consensus of the discussion was to keep based on NGRIDIRON's presumption of notability. The closer says that that presumption of notability was "rebutted." It was not. Perhaps in the case of a modern day player if no additional sources were found online one could say that the presumption of notability was rebutted. But for a century old topic, saying that no additional sources were quickly located on the internet is hardly a rebuttal to the presumption that sources existed 90 or 100 years ago. In fact, rebutting the presumption would be virtually impossible, since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And there is no reason that should be a problem, and one reason that NGRIDIRON formed a consensus that players with even one NFL game should be presumed notable. And while I think it is "virtually impossible" to rebut the presumption for a very old player, it is not necessarily impossible - see the case of Lewis (baseball), which rebutted the similar presumption for NBASE. But it is very difficult to rebut such a presumption and should be, and no reason to delete (this isn't even a BLP case) and override NGIRDIRON just because of that. Rlendog ( talk) 15:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Then that's where we disagree. In my view, if no appropriate sources can be found in a well-attended 7-day AfD, then there is a more than sufficient likelihood that the sources do not exist and the presumption of notability is rebutted. Otherwise, the presumption would be all but impossible to rebut, and would not be a presumption at all. That would be at odds with our core policy WP:V, which requires us, as pointed out by S Marshall above, to delete content that cannot be verified through reliable sources. Sandstein 16:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Actually, the article was completely verified (with 15+ references), as I stated in my DRV rationale. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 16:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply
      • Yes, I noted the repeated references to number of bytes and numbers of references. Do any of them amount to WP:SIGCOV? Because if you're claiming the article does meet the GNG, then this entire "NGRIDIRON should trump GNG" discussion is surely at cross-purposes and unnecessary. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 17:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • You and S Marshall are confusing verifiability and notability. The article had plenty of citations to third-party reliable sources, as required by WP:V. The argument for deletion was that the subject doesn't have significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. That's based on WP:GNG, and only the GNG. The GNG is not a core policy, it's not even a policy. It may well be your "view" that if sources don't turn up during an AfD then they probably don't exist, but as a closer you aren't imposing your "view" on the discussion. Hut 8.5 17:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply
      • I don't feel confused. I feel as if we're under a duty to base biographies on high-quality independent sources that give sufficient biographical information to write a biographical article, and sources that meet that requirement would always amount to "significant coverage".— S Marshall  T/ C 19:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • 7 days is hardly enough time to establish that "sources do not exist and the presumption of notability is rebutted." I have found and added sources to less prominent old-time sports figures years after an AfD. Rlendog ( talk) 14:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Do you feel that when the guideline page says "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline," that should be read as "Assume they meet GNG unless and until proven otherwise by exhaustive search"? Because if that's the intended reading, it'd be a deuced sight clearer and more helpful to editors for it to say so in terms. (Whether in general for NSPORTS, or as the Wikiproject seems to feel NGRIDIRON is in some way a higher standard and their articles are of greater inherent notability than other top-level professional sports -- specific to NFL and precursors.) 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 17:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn If the claim that the subject meets a SNG, the primary question is to verify that the subject actually meets the GNG (in this case, did the subject play a game in the NFL). As Hut mentioned, the SNGs provide a presumption of notability. That all said, if there is concern that the SNG does not work, that not all subjects in the class receive significant coverage, then we ought to reopen (to tighten up) the SNG. I think the closer did not properly apply the SNG to this case. -- Enos733 ( talk) 18:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • • Striking my original bolded comment. After reading the endorse position here, I am a bit more convinced that the closer had discretion to close as 'delete.' I do think that there should be a broader discussion of whether the presumption of meeting GNG exists with "one game" at the professional level does exist in many sports prior to (a particular date). However, that discussion is not appropriate within any specific AfD. -- Enos733 ( talk) 16:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • It's a presumption, not an assertion. It doesn't say "trust us, these will all pass GNG", it says they must separately and additionally pass GNG. Several editors seem to believe that lots of NSPORTS-threshold-passing subjects are indeed non-notable -- but not the ones from their sport, of course, it's all the others that're causing the problem! I think the question is -- and what the guideline fails to set out -- is how this "presumption" should be operationalised. Does it shift the threshold of notability as to be determined by GNG? Does it keep the notability requirement the same, but provide a "stay of execution" on the article from deletion while those required additional sources are sought? Does it void its own text and make this presumed notability operationally permanent, with GNG never having to be met at all? The arguments here seem to interpret it wildly differently which I think argues for a more specific wording indicating which of the above -- or other possibilities entirely -- is intended to be followed. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 15:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Curbon7, Curbon7, Enos733, Hut 8.5, Gonzo fan2007, Jclemens, Lepricavark, and Metropolitan90: JoelleJay ( talk) 18:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Actually that paragraph you listed as the "bulk of the article" was not in the page at the time of deletion, as I completely re-wrote the article when Pro-Football-Reference verified them as the same person. Also, I think your statement of "I believe we can reasonably assume significant or even trivial coverage does not exist for all individual NFL players in this time period." is absolute nonsense. For example, the other day, I randomly picked a few 1920s one-gamers (you're saying all!?) to make an article of, Karl Thielscher, Shirley Brick, Carl Etelman, Ching Hammill, and got each of them in to excellent shape (and two at DYK). BeanieFan11 ( talk) 19:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Also, the 1926 Louisville Colonels season was covered in-depth, as a Newspapers.com search in 1926 of "Louisville Colonels" brings up... 24,900 results (see [10]). BeanieFan11 ( talk) 19:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I did not say no NFL players in this time had SIGCOV. I said we can't assume it exists for all of them. And in my opinion biographies should consist mainly of material that is encyclopedic -- info should adhere to WP:NOT and WP:DUE and not contain every single detail that can be found on a person. If the only or even primary info that can be found comes from contemporary news articles reporting routine events, especially stuff that's only reported by one outlet, then the topic runs afoul of WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:NOTNEWS. I haven't seen a single source for Vainowski that goes beyond even trivial coverage in game recaps. JoelleJay ( talk) 20:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I amended my comment to reflect his being linked to each of those teams. Not that those additions were more than passing mentions anyway. JoelleJay ( talk) 02:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

JoelleJay, is there a specific purpose of your ping? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Also, with regards to this specific close: in the last year there have been dozens (hundreds?) of deletions of athletes who met an NSPORT SSG but not GNG/NSPORT itself and had a numerically close enough !vote differential that the closer left a remark explicitly referencing (participants' arguments on) NSPORT's relationship to GNG. This has been across a wide array of professional sports with numerous different closing admins. So Sandstein's close is not at all out of the ordinary, nor is his interpretation of the PAGs idiosyncratic. JoelleJay ( talk) 19:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. A "presumption of notability" is just that -- a presumption. It does not mean anyone who meets the criteria is automatically notable. To quote WP:NSPORT, "meeting of any of these [sport-specific] criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." In this case, there are apparently no sources to establish this individual's notability, so it should be deleted. Calidum 19:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment for those interested in seeing the last version of the article before deletion: User:Gonzo fan2007/Pete Vainowski. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per above, sports SNGs provide a presumption of notability that can be defeated through AFD. That is what happened here. Therapyisgood ( talk) 19:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Sourcing was quality and a consensus to keep was evident. Etzedek24 ^{( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record)} 20:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Which sources provided even WP:BASIC coverage? JoelleJay ( talk) 02:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Can we have a temp. undelete please? The article and its sources are relevant to the AfD and some of the points raised at DRV. Hobit ( talk) 22:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • @ Hobit: A user has linked the last version prior to deletion just above. Etzedek24 ^{( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record)} 00:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Thank you. Hobit ( talk) 02:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Admittedly I'm biased, but I feel like the keep arguments were solid. Enough was available about Vainowski that a decent article could be written, certainly not a substub. I was actually considering opening this DRV soon anyay. Sandstein's close was a SUPERVOTE. ~ EDDY ^{( talk/ contribs)}~ 01:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Not according to WP:SUPERVOTE it's not. "It should be noted that consensus discussions (including XfDs and RfCs) are not really polls. For example, if an XfD discussion has more "keeps" than "deletes" but the "deletes" are grounded in policy and the "keeps" are of the WP:ILIKEIT variety (or conversely if the deletes say WP:ITSCRUFT and the "keeps" are grounded in policy), it's not a "supervote" to close in accordance with a significant minority opinion." 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 02:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Sources aren't great, but well past WP:V. I don't see how a consensus can be found for deletion in that discussion. overturn to NC. Hobit ( talk) 02:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I can see the sources offered verify the statements made. But Verifiability also entails notability, which explicitly gets us right back to WP:GNG. Do you feel it meets that standard? 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 02:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • No, WP:V and WP:N are quite different. I'm not sure what point you're making. Hobit ( talk) 04:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
      • You are right that they're different but that's actually an issue - an article can have statements that are all verifiable without actually managing to make the article notable. Verifiability is necessary, but not sufficient. Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
        • Quote from WP:V: "Notability; Further information: Wikipedia:Notability; If no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it (i.e., the topic is not notable)." Hence the explicit policy basis for deletion, even if all the contents are cited (with below notability-threshold sources, as here). 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 16:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
          • Yes, WP:V references WP:N, but they are still different. "Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations". This article, when deleted, met that bar. Hobit ( talk) 20:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
            • It met the bar of that portion of WP:V, sure. But what about the part that I quoted? Is that merely a "reference" to WP:N (and hence to the GNG), and not a clear statement in policy that it must satisfy that too? It too is exceptionally poorly written, if that's the meaning we're to take from it! Do you feel that this article in fact meets GNG, or establishes notability by some other route? Or that the AfD debate (or this one) established a "consensus" to ignore that? Because that's not really in line with our policy on what "consensus" means, either. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 22:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• I think that at the core of this debate, there's a basic logical issue. NSPORTS and its many sub-guidelines create a "presumption" that sources exist. Any "presumption" is inherently rebuttable, right? If it isn't rebuttable, then it is not, in any meaningful sense, a presumption. So how can it be rebutted? In other words, is it up to the "keep" side to produce the decent sources that they claim must exist, or is it up to the "delete" side to prove that decent sources don't exist? And if so, how can they do that?— S Marshall  T/ C 10:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • To me there are three issues. #1 Is it likely, with something this old, that paper sources exist? The answer is "probably". #2 Do I personally think we should have this article? I'd lean toward yes because I see no harm (not a BLP or otherwise likely to cause problems) and I think Wikipedia should generally cover older things when we can. #3 and most importantly, can local consensus override a broader one? And that's a clear yes IMO. That's the whole point of WP:IAR. Numbers do matter and here the local consensus was clearly going one way. If that many people said "keep, IAR" compared to "delete, WP:N" I'd say we'd be at NC. I don't think we are less than NC now. But my bar for where IAR kicks in is generally lower than most. YMMV. Hobit ( talk) 20:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • #1 WP:MUSTBESOURCES. #2 WP:NOHARM. #3 WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Alvaldi ( talk) 21:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
      • I think WP:CLOSEAFD (second bullet) is probably the stronger argument than your links. But all that said, the whole point of WP:IAR is that sometimes the rules are wrong. Are they wrong here? I'd say this is a type of article we should have. NOHARM is really the center of inclusionism vs deletionism (as the link states). I personally think this type of article is fine--every single point is verified and I'm not worried about spam or BLP issues creeping into it. But I agree with you my view is in the minority. Hobit ( talk) 21:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
        • I think the harm done is to further ratchet the "other stuff" process of ad hoc inclusion. There's about a thousand more where that came from from the NFL alone, and if other sports disagree with the NFL Wikiproject's thesis that they're an especially rigorous special case, replicate that for any or all of the others. If it's desired to get to the point where NSPORT (or some subset) is sufficient in itself (perhaps with a dash of trivial mentions in verifiable sources) for inclusion, better to say so explicitly, rather than having a swiss cheese of special pleading. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 22:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
          • I'd be happy if we tried to do something like that for pre-WWII biographies (not just sports), recognizing that folks who did the same things now as then see a lot more coverage. Just as we often raise the bar GNG for people who don't meet the SNG (college athletes for example commonly need to meet a higher standard than just two sources about them), I'd like to see us lower the bar for older (pre WWII) BIOs that meet the SNG. Hobit ( talk) 23:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
            • Seems a little ad hoc to me. Does that period suffer from a huge amount of lost sources, or were those people just less "inherently" notable in their day, and are merely being seen otherwise through a zeal in hindsight about a multi-$billion industry? Hard to determine that objectively, especially by way of a cutoff date. But I'd rather see something on those lines than swiss-cheese exceptions. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 00:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

        The only possible argument I can see for IAR is that an encyclopedia "should" have a standalone article on every single NFL player; that having this unlinked name in a season's roster is specifically damaging our coverage of the topic. We certainly can't make the argument that the trivial mentions currently in the article are of encyclopedic value, else we'd allow standalones for everyone ever listed on a sports page. And it's hard to see how IAR could be applied on the basis that coverage "probably does exist" when even local papers barely ever list his first initial and his own obituary doesn't mention playing football; moreover, at what point would anyone agree that SIGCOV doesn't exist or that enough time has passed that editors "should" have found sources by now? So we're left with the completionist argument that having a standalone for every NFL player provides more benefit than its subverting WP:NOT causes harm. In which case I would argue, why NFL players and not any other group of people who may have a few members that don't meet GNG? Why should this exception be more attainable for athletes (by virtue of NSPORT's "presumptions") than for artists or musicians or politicians, who have to demonstrate GNG from the start and don't get extra time to add refs? JoelleJay ( talk) 21:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse WP:NSPORT, which NGRIDIRON is a sub-guideline of, makes it very clear that all articles must provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Nobody has been able to provide these sources. How is he a notable person if nobody took note? Alvaldi ( talk) 17:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse an absolutely correct application of policy and of the long-standing consensus on how notability policies apply in practice. WP:NRVE, and if the keep !votes did not present such sources (or much more besides what appears special pleading), then they can safely be discounted: even NSPORTS explicitly states that Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept.. I'll also note that policy and guidelines are not unbreakable laws, and that the spirit and the principle (in this case, that there should be proper sources to write an actual article which meets V, NPOV and NOR, and not just database entries) are very much more important and convincing than the legalistic interpretation of NGRIDIRON (which, as the closer correctly indicated, is but a rebuttable presumption) made by some of those arguing for overturning. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 02:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist - If a majority of participants are appealing to an SNG that explictly defers to the GNG in the false belief that this contradicts the GNG, this doesn't mean they can simply be disregarded. On the contrary, they may typically be implicitly making the argument that some coverage on the topic is appropriate, as Cbl62 explicitly did "it still represents legitimate and valuable encyclopedic content IMO". The delete side had a stronger argument than keep, but there was certainly no consensus to delete. While this does put the closer in a difficult position, Sandstein was not without alternatives: he could have made this point in a comment and extended the AfD, for example. An extended AfD could be looking for an ATD or to see whether a presentation of the policy facts sways heads. As it stands, I find this close undemocratic.

Note, it has been opined that the GNG always trumps SNGs. This is not always the case: WP:NPROF is an exception. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

But it does trump them in WP:NSPORT. Alvaldi ( talk) 12:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• I deliberately phrased my argument so as not to challenge the interpretation that Sandstein & S Marshall have given to the relation between GNG and NSPORT, but the idea that the latter "trumps" the former is, at best, an oversimplification. What's the point of establishing a presumption that sources exist if the actual challenge to provide sources takes the exact same form as if this presumption was not made? Several people in the AfD said that it is quite likely that print sources exist that are not freely available online. — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline." If an article passes NSPORT, but not GNG, it doesn't qualify for inclusion. If it passes GNG, not not NSPORT, it does. I'm not sure what interpretation you might put on "trumping" that differs from that, or how you feel the above might otherwise be an oversimplification, but that seems pretty clear to me, from the text of that guideline alone. Whether that makes it "pointless" is a legitimate question to ask generally, but it seems problematic to leap from there to simply ignoring what it actually does say. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 16:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• I'll reiterate that the argument you are making has nothing to do with the rationale for my 'overturn' opinion, which supposes that Sandstein's contentions about the relation between NSPORT and the GNG are correct. As for it being an oversimplification, note that WP:NSPORT/FAQ has a full five questions exploring the relation between NSPORT and the GNG. — Charles Stewart (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Those five full questions supporting and reinforcing the "also needs to pass GNG" point, so I don't see how that supports your "oversimplification" characterisation. If you do accept these "contentions" (i.e., straightforward summary of the content of the guideline) are correct, I in turn don't see how you get to your "overturn" rationale, other than by observing that it could have been relisted. Closers are enjoined "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." I don't see wherein the closer acted less "democratically" than the required standard, and surely they'd have erred in acting more "democratically". 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 19:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Since it is irrelevant to the case I made, let's agree to disagree about the 'oversimplification' bit. Since we read the FAQ so differently, I am not too bothered by your failure to understand my argument and won't attempt to clarify if noone else asks. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• That's quite the take on "agreeing to disagree" you have, there. To be more direct then, your "oversimpificatioon" contention is clearly as erroneous as you now concede it is irrelevant, and your "argument" stands on presupposing that people might have intended to make arguments that they did not, and which are unsound and insufficient in any event, and just should be just-count-the-votes'd as if they had made valid ones. That's expressly contrary to the advice offered to closers, for the very good reason that it makes nonsense of the idea that consensus and vote-counting in any way differ. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 07:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I don't really see how the participants could've been unaware that NSPORT itself states it does not override GNG. Geschichte made a comment very early on stating as much, and Nosebagbear and/or I directly replied to Metropolitan90, Curbon7, Lepricavark, Oaktree b, and Eddy with detailed explanations of how NSPORT works. BeanieFan11 and Cbl62 are athlete AfD regulars who definitely know both the NSPORT/GNG relationship and that straight "Keep meets [SSG]" !votes are now frequently disregarded by closers. I think anyone who wasn't aware of the guideline or the very strong trend in deleting athletes who don't meet GNG, but who is then personally informed of it, should at least respond with a defense of their position, support their arguments in a different way, or amend their !vote if they want their participation to carry much weight. If they don't, their !votes are just straight-up ignoring a PAG without any explanation and definitely should not be given the same closing consideration as those that do address it. JoelleJay ( talk) 22:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• I agree that the AfD discussion was problematic, and was at odds with how NSPORTS is currently formulated. There are mechanisms for admins to try and guide an AfD that they think has gone wrong. But simply throwing out the majority of !votes because the closer disagrees with the interpretation of policy and the appeals to IAR is undemocratic. I don't like attacking Sandstein in this way as I think he is one of our best closers, but this close was not the exercise in giving extra weight to better arguments that I routinely endorse at DRV but something else that I am displeased to see. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse in this instance the closer has it correct. NGRIDIRON establishes a rebuttable presumption of notability, and the arguments have successfully rebutted it. I endorse the deletion on this narrow basis. In the general case, SNG/GNG is either/or, otherwise SNGs would be otiose. ("A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy." – Wikipedia:Notability; my emphasis) Stifle ( talk) 12:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to No Consensus, for at least two reasons:
  • The closer discounted the Keep statements because they did not address GNG, but the Keep editors may not have been aware that the closer would be imposing strict compliance with GNG, so the closer should have Relisted to allow the Keep editors time to find the sources that are presumed to exist. While the closer intended to be following the letter of the law, the closer was imposing a standard on the Keep editors that they were not aware of. A Relist would deal with this concern.
  • I have what is probably a minority view that Special Notability Guides should be an alternative to general notability, and that Special Notability Guides are clearer and easier to use than general notability and should be used, not discounted. If the English Wikipedia has 40% sportspeople, perhaps it is because sports have more clearly defined and so better sports notability guidelines than other areas of notability. ( Musical notability guidelines are also good because they are clear, and minimize the searching for sources that establish general notability.
    • This is an excellent example of why sports notability guidelines should speak for themselves without requiring a search for old sources.
    • The emphasis on the vague guideline of general notability encourages paid editors and promoters to cram articles and drafts with passing mentions.
  • The editors who said Keep may not have known that the closer would be requiring general notability, and either a No Consensus or a Relist is in order.

Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• • • Minimizing the searching for sources really isn't a good thing, Robert.— S Marshall  T/ C 16:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
      • Comment to User:S Marshall - I didn't recommend minimizing the search for sources. In particular, an article can be tagged as needing better sources. I said that the sports notability should not require a search for old sources. The other point that I made wasn't about sports. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply
        • Oh, I'm sorry. In that case I've failed to understand what you meant by Musical notability guidelines are also good because they are clear, and minimize the searching for sources that establish general notability. Could you clarify?— S Marshall  T/ C 17:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • There were several mentions of GNG in the AfD discussion. There was even some engagement from "keep" !voters, one acknowledging that GNG needed to be met and at present wasn't, but evidently hoping to get there in... another year, maybe? Another insisted it was in "great shape". It seems odd to say that participants would be "not aware" a guideline would be applied, after several people pointing out what it says, and arguing very clearly that it should be. I respect the view that the SNGs should be other than they are, but I don't see why that's an argument for not following them unless and until such time as they're changed. The article is replete with "passing mention" citations of the sort you appear to find problematic, so I don't follow your reasoning there. The issue is with a lack of WP:SIGCOV. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 19:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• And if the AfD is relisted, you'll have a chance to refine this argument. The fact is that most of your description of the AfD applies to before the first extension and still a majority of the opinions in the extension period were keep. The argument was made, didn't persuade regular AfD participants, but did persuade Sandstein to effect a dramatic overriding of the majority opinion at AfD. I think this kind of way of making decisions is bad for Wikipedia. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• If any degree of consistency of application of policy and guidelines occurs, I won't need to avail of such a chance (nor do I think any "refinement" is required, come to that, though no doubt this is due to my being unaware of its crude nature). While there's an obvious danger if closers start to simply "supervote" to override finely balanced arguments in line with their own preference, the IMO far more acute one is if supposedly established principles like notability are blithely ignored by the "majority", and that's to be considered binding on the closer. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 07:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment I have probably seen in my 16 years here at ;east 3 or 4 reversals of the role of SPORTSN. I take that to mean there is no lasting agreement, and that therefore any argument based of the fundamental purpose of WP as expressed in WP:FIVE is relevant. Even the most general principle, that we should include what readers would expect us to include, fails in his field, as readers clearly expect very different things. This is a difficult subject for me to consider, asI personally have very little interest, but I accept that most of the world, has a very great interest. The only thing consistent in this area is that all attempts at compromise guidelines have consistently failed. I fall back on my general feeling, that it doesn't matter if WP covers extensively fields I do not care about, as long as it is willing to be equally tolerant of the fields where I do. I therefore focus my arguments on increasing coverage on the areas where I think we need to be inclusive. If other fields think similarly, alll I ask is mutual forbearance. DGG ( talk ) 10:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Clearly there's a degree of incredulity from the Gridiron guys, who seem to be quite an active lobby group. Much like their transatlantic cousins at WP:FOOTBALL they seem to have their own in-house WP:ARS and a WP:SNG they've carefully crafted to try and cocoon certain favoured groups of players. And in reality this was quite a courageous AfD close (shouldn't have been, perhaps). I'm an inclusionist by temperament and it's a shame to lose articles like this - in a way these editors are almost a victim of their own success because they've found themselves straying into WP:OR territory. But the logic of the closure was sound - the deletion arguments were stronger because WP:GNG wasn't met. Anyone with any experience of AfD will know the usual pattern: sources are offered up and then the 'other side' pretend they're deficient in some novel way. That's the sort of tedious game which will usually fizzle out into a no consensus, unless there's a bad/partisan closure (which quite often happens with soccer AfDs). The tragedy for the Gridiron guys here was that they didn't really come up with anything in terms of WP:SIGCOV. So they didn't even address, let alone answer, the argument about failing WP:GNG. On this evidence they still haven't. Bring back Daz Sampson ( talk) 12:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Bring back Daz Sampson, While I agree with your points for endorsement, your first two sentences are absolutely outrageous statements, and I'm surprised it wasn't called out sooner. ARS is a completely separate issue from this, and especially considering that WT:WikiProject American football has no mention of this AfD or DR, the majority of the people who are voting keep/overturn likely are not from there. Secondly, the SNG in question is part of an official guideline, not some perfunctory essay. With respect, and I seriously mean no insult by this because you're a great editor, the idea that an official guideline is in any way crafted out of some sort of deceit is absolutely stupid. Every guideline on WP:NSPORT I'm sure was carefully toiled over by dozens of regular editors and administrators. Curbon7 ( talk) 01:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn (uninvolved) while WP:NSPORTS notes that the guideline is ultimately a recommendation that defers to WP:GNG, this isn't really the case and doesn't make sense as such. After all, WP:GNG is also just a guideline and not policy. Editors in the discussion weighed the specifics of NSPORTS heavier than GNG, which is reasonable to do as they are both just guidelines, and I don't think the closing admin made the right decision in ignoring that. Elli ( talk | contribs) 07:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  this isn't really the case and doesn't make sense as such. Can you explain what you mean by this? JoelleJay ( talk) 20:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse A presumption is just that, a presumption until someone goes and actually looks for it. It is not a 'get out of deletion forever' argument. Since most of the keeps at that AFD lacked actual policy & guideline based arguments, they have zero weight. The way you counter an article nominated for AFD due to a lack of reliable sourcing, is to actually find reliable sourcing, not argue 'there probably are sources somewhere'. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 12:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • There were 17 reliable sources in the article... BeanieFan11 ( talk) 17:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply

    You know they meant SIGCOV sources and not trivial mentions. JoelleJay ( talk) 20:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply

    • Actually, no, I didn't. And tell me this: Why, as an encyclopedia, would we not want to have a high-quality article on someone who meets our criteria of inclusion? Because Vainowski is just that, it was in excellent shape and meets the criteria of inclusion (NGRIDIRON). I do not see his deletion improving the encyclopedia and in addition to many other reasons stated in my nomination, believe we can follow WP:Ignore all rules on this, which states: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 21:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply

      ...High quality? I'm sorry, but the exact same amount and depth of material could be cobbled together for an article on just about any American high school athlete, or even really anyone with an obituary, many of whom would have far more coverage. So is his one NFL game, about which we know zilch regarding his performance, enough to make up for his biography having literally nothing else more remarkable or worthy of note than any amateur sportsperson? Why have BIO1E at all if we still keep someone who never even received SIGCOV for the one event he could have been notable for? And come on, the only reason you're defending this article at all is because you want a standalone for every NFL player, regardless of whether they have coverage, so at least address how Wikipedia is improved by having this one list (NFL players) only contain blue links. JoelleJay ( talk) 23:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• The mentions were not SIGCOV but they were not trivial either. In this case, our ATD policy is practically begging us to look for an alternative to keep/delete. The failure of the endorse camp to see there as being a content question here that goes beyond application of our notability policies is just as bad as the failure of the overturn to keep camp to wrestle with the sourcing failures of the article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• I have been arguing for quite a while that statistics entries like this should be done as lists of players. If your source is basically no more than a row of an excel spreadsheet, don't inflate each row into a separate article. Reyk _YO! 20:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• I'm not arguing for a separate article. What you describe would be consistent with a merge/redirect outcome to an AfD. I'm arguing for a relist, on the basis that Sandstein's close was unsound. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• As I understand it there's something of a state of flux in the possible targets for such, given that editors have expressed unhappiness about redirection to "team" articles, and a possible alternative in this case is up for deletion too. So while that's not a wildly unreasonable outcome, overturning, relisting, arguing in favour of m/r, and then coming up with one seems like a surfeit of process to get there. Seems more practicable to just recreate as a redirect as and when. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 08:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse per Only In Death. People look at the words "rebuttable presumption of notability" and, through some trick of eyesight or psychology, read "permanent unappealable exemption from WP:V and WP:N, and an automatic entitlement to a shrine". A presumption that there must be sources out there somewhere no longer applies when people have gone and looked for sources and found none. We expect biographies to contain biographical information, not just statistics. If the sources aren't there to support article content then we should not have a stand-alone article. The delete !voters got this one right, as did the closing administrator. Reyk _YO! 01:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - The key missing element in the argument from those requesting this be overturned is that NGRIDIRON/NSPORTS's SNGs don't outweigh the GNG; specifically, the reason the NSPORT SNGs exist is stated quite clearly in the "nutshell": An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor, as listed on this page, and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. (emphasis added) This point — that the only reason this SNG exists is that it presumes if a subject meets it, they will have enough coverage to pass GNG — is quite clearly also stated in the first line of the guideline: This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. (emphasis added)
  
  If there were any further question as to whether there needs to be enough sources to pass GNG for an athletic biography to be kept, that is fully answered by the lower paragraph WP:SPORTCRIT: A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have participated in or achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level. (emphasis added) - Nowhere in these guidelines is the standard for notability changed, indeed the community standard is listed directly in the first sentence of WP:SPORTCRIT. WP:NGRIDIRON does not override this, nor does it supplant the definition of notability... it merely is supposed to indicate a person is "likely" to have enough sources about them to meet WP:BASIC.
  
  In this case, as the closing administrator noted, there was no evidence presented during the discussion (by those requesting retention of the article) showing GNG/BASIC had been met. Some comments above stating those participating in the discussion weren't aware in-depth sources were required (because they were merely reading NSPORTS), and therefore a relist is necessary, I find a touch disingenuous. The requirement for significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources is listed directly in NSPORTS (as I've noted), so all editors quoting the guideline should be aware of those critical parts. If it's impossible for experienced researchers (as most Wikipedia editors at AFD are) to find the proper sources in 14+ days, I think it is entirely safe to presume that the necessary sources don't exist. - Therefore, I entirely endorse the closing administrator's decision as within reasonable administrative discretion. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The delete voters noted that, according to the SNG itself, GNG must be met, but just about every keep voter (with the possible exception of Onel5969 at the end) ignored this and implied that the mere presumption outlined in the SNG itself was enough. Since the former argued that the sources do not meet GNG, while the latter's arguments were based on SNG only, the consensus of the discussion was that the topic fails GNG. Therefore, a non-keep close was correct. Avilich ( talk) 18:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Excluding database listings, but including all mentions in newspapers, there are a total of 228 words on Vainowski, of which 167 are from his obituaries (not independent), 24 are literally just his name and position in lineups/sub lists (and this includes the person he subbed for), and just 37 (spread over three newspaper articles) have at least a clause of attached text: 1. This came about when Norton was dropped in his tracks by Vanowski back of the Moline goal. 2. Other shining lights of the Pullman squad were ... Vanowski, guard. 3. ...the Panther reserve list includes ... Vainowski, tackle from Loyola, 238. So please, can someone explain why we should IAR for this one NFL player based on just 37 independent words in prose? Why does this guy deserve a standalone biography when the coverage of him in what made him "notable" amounts to R. G. Vanioski and Slagle for Vanioski? Why should we forestall deletion of a gridiron athlete based on the presumption there are more sources out there when the above list is the result of 14 days of intensive subscription-based source searching by seasoned editors who focus on historic gridiron athlete biographies? JoelleJay ( talk) 00:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse I've stayed out of this DR thus far, but I guess I need to throw my hat in the ring. As one of the people who voted keep in the original AfD, I am now inclined to endorse the decision to delete. In fairness, a lot of the confusion regarding the relationship between SNG and GNG is that it varies dramatically between different criteria groups. For example, with WP:NPOL, GNG literally does not matter so long as there's a source that states the person meets that criteria; on the contrary, as this discussion and the hundreds on NFOOTY before have proved, passing the SNG here is not the end-all-be-all. In the case for WP:NSPORT as I've come to think of it, the SNGs are a like an exponential curve like this: [11], with t being games played and N(t) being probability of meeting GNG. Meaning: the more games a player has, the more statistically likely they are to meeting GNG, even if the sources aren't easily found, so we can tend to give those more leeway. However, in cases like this one, where the player only played for a single or a handful of games, it is very statistically unlikely for them to have any sources that confer GNG (that's not even getting into the weeks of very thorough source searching and analysis that came up empty, simply the statistical likelihoods). JoelleJay rightfully kicked my butt in that AfD, and I now find myself agreeing with her very strong arguments. Curbon7 ( talk) 01:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn (uninvolved) to keep. The close stated that it weighed WP:GNG arguments more than WP:NSPORTS because the latter guideline says people are "presumed notable". However, GNG is also based on a presumption: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article... WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS allows closers to discount arguments if core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) are violated, but none of those are a factor in this AfD.
  This AfD is basically an argument of GNG vs NSPORTS, both presumptive guidelines. AfDs have been closed against keeping, even when NSPORTS is met e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jones (third baseman), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smith (baseball). However, those participants explicitly !voted that GNG was not met, outnumbering SNG keepers, and the close was not by discounting guideline-based !votes at the close.
  Moreover, some of the NSPORTS keep's did address GNG, saying that offline sources likely exist: SNGs are particularly useful for cases like this, where the subject is almost 100 years old and most contemporary sources are unavailable. ( Rlendog), SNGs are basically custom-made for historical bios such as this, whereupon we presume that sources exist in some offline form if the criteria is passed ( Curbon7), while online sources are not there, I think this is a perfect example of an SNG working, since he does meet WP:GRIDIRON ( Onel5969). This is echoed at Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ#Q4: "What is considered a "reasonable amount of time" to uncover appropriate sources?"
  Considering this person played in the 1930s, sources are more likely offline, if they exist. As such, we should in good faith be following the guideline WP:FAILN, placing notability tags on the article and engaging subject matter experts before resorting to AfD, especially for a non-contemporary subject. No prejudice to opening another AfD if those steps are followed and no new sources have been found after some sufficient time.— Bagumba ( talk) 10:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

No it's not GNG vs. NSPORTS. Not only does the latter explicitly mandate the former, but using one rule against the other without good reason is gaming the system. For that reason, it doesn't matter that GNG also uses the word "presumption". Consensus was that the topic fails GNG. This in turn invalidates SNG. Also, saying that "sources likely exist" is another way of saying that they don't exist for the purposes of the discussion; all your three comments essentially admit that there are no sources that would demonstrate notability. Avilich ( talk) 17:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

No it's not GNG vs. NSPORTS. Not only does the latter explicitly mandate the former...: Please kindly quote where this "mandate" is specified. What NSPORTS does say: Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline... Also, the guideline WP:N reads: A topic is presumed to merit an article if...It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right...— Bagumba ( talk) 18:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Sure. the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline. See also. Avilich ( talk) 19:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

"should meet" ≠ a "mandate", that would be must. !Voters can decide whether GNG should trump the bright-line guidance on a per case basis (also per WP:N). The numerical count was roughly 8–3 in favor of the SNG here. There's no valid basis in this case to discount !votes and not respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants. ( WP:DGFA).— Bagumba ( talk) 19:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. JoelleJay ( talk) 19:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Beat me right to it. I'll also add that judgements and feekings should absolutely be disregarded if they do not conform to policies and guidelines. SNG is simply a guide to reaching GNG, not an alternative to it. All of the 8 voters arguing otherwise were mistaken. Avilich ( talk) 20:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict) But there was no consensus that "eventually" was now. WP:FAILN wasn't followed to reasonably allow possible offline sources to be uncovered. That would sway !voters that options have been exhausted.— Bagumba ( talk) 20:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

In the absence of a fixed amount of time for source searching, the "correct" deadline defaults to the regular duration of an AfD, which has expired. Keep in mind that creating a draft is always an option if more sources are found. Avilich ( talk) 21:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

What guideline or policy says that the "'correct' deadline defaults to the regular duration of an AfD"? That is just a made up deadline. Rlendog ( talk) 14:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply

... the AfD policy itself? What's the point of having deletion discussions in the first place if the consensus at the time of its closure (that sources were not found to satisy GNG) won't be binding? This is simply how the whole process works, and any other deadline is completely arbitrary: it's thus your burden to come up with a reason (or "policy") for inventing a random amount of time during which an article cannot be deleted. (Also, isn't two and a half weeks enough anyway?) Avilich ( talk) 14:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply

WP:N says GNG or SNG is acceptable, and the SNG (NSPORT) says GNG must be met. This has been upheld in hundreds of recent athlete AfDs. Regarding "eventually": who are these "subject matter experts" if not BeanieFan and Cbl62? Are you waiting for someone who specifically has expertise on a team not even notable enough for its own article because it only played in the NFL for "four" seasons (scoring a total of 13 points against league opponents)? Do you not think the folks at the Professional Football Researchers Association would have something on him if it existed? Not necessarily like a biography of him by their biography committee; just a mention at all in a Coffin Corner article somewhere, or even something discussing the Colonels in more depth than "The Colonels played with castoffs from other NFL teams, and it is doubtful whether many in Louisville bothered even to follow the team." There are multiple CC articles discussing the 1926 season in depth, and a few on the Brecks, so it's not like they didn't have access to news archives. And anyway, why should athlete bios be singularly allowed more time for source searching than bios on any other person? JoelleJay ( talk) 21:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

The allotted time of "eventually" is determined by the participants, and any subsequent consensus at XfD renominations. These discussions are open to the community. Admin discretion is a stretch for an 8–3 numerical count, with no policy-based basis for discounting of !votes. When in doubt, don't delete ( WP:DGFA)— Bagumba ( talk) 02:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply

The admin was not "in doubt" when closing the discussion, so that doesn't apply. What does is Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted ( WP:DGFA), Consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes and The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments ( WP:NHC) Avilich ( talk) 13:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply

FAQ4 is dependent on given a reasonable expectation that sources can be found. Even if we liberally interpret Cbl62, BeanieFan11, Rlendog, Lepricavark, Curbon7, and Onel5969's !votes as all explicitly arguing SIGCOV was likely to exist given "more time" to find difficult-to-access sources, no one really made an argument justifying why it is reasonable to expect SIGCOV in the first place. Giving one explanation for why sources haven't been found so far isn't the same as demonstrating coverage exists for other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics. And it's not like if the article was kept we'd have the assurance that someone was actually looking for sources; apparently out of the whole NFL project only BeanieFan and Cbl62 work on historical articles and neither of them has offered to take on draftifying/userifying, and anyway if they think the article is already in "great shape" despite lacking a single non-trivial independent source, why would we expect further expansion from them? We instead have to assume someone independently would come across this article, recognize he doesn't have SIGCOV despite the refbombing, and have access to 1920s Chicago microfiches to search thoroughly through, and the motivation to do so. At what point do we just accept that a) coverage of an individual offensive guard's performance in part of one NFL game where his team scored zero points is just not going to exist; and b) presuming it exists from his playing in non-NFL leagues is directly at odds with WP:NGRIDIRON itself?

Also, I don't see why the nom is left out of the count, and Geschichte's comment would obviously be considered more in favor of deletion than keeping, so 8-4.5 isn't such a stretch. Not to mention the two keep !voters who have since agreed with the delete close. JoelleJay ( talk) 22:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Not to mention the two keep !voters who have since agreed with the delete close: One accepted the close but continues to disagree with the outcome. Both can be true (though becoming rarer in this world).— Bagumba ( talk) 01:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Do you have anything to say about the other 95% of my comment? JoelleJay ( talk) 21:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment - This DRV has become exactly what DRVs are not supposed to be, namely a relitigation of the AfD. DRV is meant to be a narrow judgement on whether the close was sound, nor a broad discussion about what arguments should have been made in the AfD but were not. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  One could boldly go and collapse off-topic comments which are (re-)arguing the content as opposed to the merits of the close's view of consensus. Otherwise, the DRV closer will weigh them appropriately.— Bagumba ( talk) 12:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  ( edit conflict) @ Chalst: that was always a little likely here. AfD DRVs are most often where the numerical backing didn't match the result (or, at least, that's what's claimed), and those can easily be kept separate from relitigating. Here we're on the prong of whether the weighting of certain !votes as being less policy driven was correct - and from what I've seen in other DRVs, that's less "is that de-weighting within admin discretion" and far more "is that de-weighting correct". It's not beyond the realms of possibility for the "losing" side here to take it as a general question to RfC. Obviously the source relitigation is not beneficial (from both sides) Nosebagbear ( talk) 12:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Drifting off into relitigation is a constant danger at DRV, but I don't recall a DRV that went off the rails as badly as this one. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I only bring up those issues to contextualize statements that the article was "well-sourced" with "17 references", since I doubt other editors are aware of the degree of triviality in those mentions. It also highlights the weaknesses in claiming sources are likely to exist. Both of these things would've been considered by Sandstein in his close, which is why I think it's relevant here. JoelleJay ( talk) 19:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I could not find "well-sourced" or "17 references", which you quoted, in either the AfD or this DRV. Can you provide the full sentence(s) for reference? Thanks.— Bagumba ( talk) 01:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

These were intended to be summaries of statements, not exact quotations, but here you go: "well-sourced": Sourcing was quality and Why, as an encyclopedia, would we not want to have a high-quality article on someone who meets our criteria of inclusion? Because Vainowski is just that, it was in excellent shape and meets the criteria of inclusion (NGRIDIRON); "17 references": Actually, the article was completely verified (with 15+ references) and There were 17 reliable sources in the article.... JoelleJay ( talk) 02:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

AFAICS, your "summaries of statements" seem to about two statements originating from the same user.— Bagumba ( talk) 08:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

....And? You asked for the sources, I supplied the statements (from two editors) that most directly inspired the wording in the scare quotes. JoelleJay ( talk) 20:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Restricting my attention to JoelleJay's source listing, that is regarded by many, including myself, as constructive at DRV. It doesn't usually make clear if a close was correct, but it does make it easier to understand an AfD and it proves useful if the AfD is extended. My top-level comment was not a criticism of that. — Charles Stewart (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Overturn per Bagumba. Cbl62 ( talk) 20:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  Bagumba's argument is not convincing. It is not necessary (or possible) to irrefutably prove a negative (that "no acceptable sources exist"), although in this case the evidence of absence is certainly acceptable. However, those claiming that sources "likely exist" are doing nothing but special pleading (an argument which could best be summarised as "yes, no good sources have been found, but this article should still be kept despite not meeting the inclusion criteria, and despite not having any sources from which to write an encyclopedia article [as opposed to a database entry], because [insert special pleading here]"). If sources "likely exist", then it is the burden of those making the positive claim (that they do) to find them. If, despite the AfD being open for two and a half weeks, despite it having actually started more than a month ago, and despite multiple explanations that, yes, articles need to meet GNG (a widely and near unanimously held view which surely overrides any WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to the contrary), no such acceptable sources have been presented, then, yes, the article gets to be deleted for failing GNG. No amount of special pleading or pointing to some NSPORT guideline (which have quite the reputation for being overly generous in many instances) is going to change the basic fact that no acceptable sources (from which to write an article which meets WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV) have been found. If no acceptable sources have been found, then the closer has correctly assessed the consensus by discounting arguments which are not based on policy or based on misinterpretation thereof.

  If people are worried that there hasn't been enough time to "look for sources", then A) there's nothing that prevents them from continuing looking for those (after all, if you find them, you can always write a new article based on those) and B) that is not a valid reason to indefinitely delay this: it is expected that if sources exist, they can be found in a timely manner once the topic is directly challenged at AfD (eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met.). If not, too bad, life isn't fair, get on with it. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 16:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Whichever way we go, there really needs to be more predictability and consistency in these things. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Cook (footballer, born 1885) closed as "keep" even though there's less coverage and substance than Vainowski had. It appears that English football and American football are governed by different rules. Cbl62 ( talk) 20:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Cbl62: Two wrongs don't make a right. Here, fixed for you. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 21:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Two wrongs don't make a right might better be applied to the stunt you just pulled. We don't relist AfDs on the day they are closed unless the closer says it is OK to immediately relist. DRV is the right forum to object to closes you disagree with. You are injuring your credibility with this kind of behaviour. — Charles Stewart (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ RandomCanadian: Renominating one article < 8 hours after a "keep" closure (and following an extended debate) does not in any way "fix" the problem. The problem is that we have a clear schism in how the presumption of notability is interpreted AND in how AfDs turning on said presumption are being closed. Rather than "fixing" something, I tend to agree with Chalst that your relist looks more like a stunt that simply brings into greater focus the arbitrariness of the process. Cbl62 ( talk) 02:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

If I had to guess, this was closed rather than relisted because no one actually brought up that NSPORT defers to the GNG. There were very reasonable, thoughtful !votes addressing lack of SIGCOV and the weakness in calling his league "professional", but without someone specifically rebutting the "keep passes NFOOTY" !votes with why those arguments are invalid according to the guidelines (and sticking around to defend this with citations to precedent), there's not much an admin can do. Fenix down has a solid history of explicitly acknowledging NFOOTY doesn't supersede GNG and disregarding garbage !votes, so (IMO) the arbitrariness in this case came from the lack of a clear PAG-backed delete argument in the face of a full-strength NFOOTY !voting bloc jumping in at the end rather than administrative caprices. Nosebagbear and Sandstein could probably attest to such closes being frustratingly common. JoelleJay ( talk) 03:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply