- Super Bowl LIII (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
- Possible solutions
- The full article history should be restored during this discussion so it can be reviewed by editors who wish to comment.
- The article be at least restored as a redirect to the article Super Bowl until details of the actual game become available.
Article was created deleted several times in a classic "wheel war" between new users and editors who disagree with the existence of the article. I created the article a few days ago with "dummy information" with the intent removing the info and keeping the template. Someone proposed a deletion but it was removed too quickly for me to see who made the proposal and why it was proposed. Another editor somehow managed to block the title, forcing me to use " crystal ball" claim seems reasonable for events many decades away, but the one I'm trying to create is only 5 years away. Presbitow ( talk) 09:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC) [reply- Temporarily restored for Deletion Review. JohnCD (talk) 12:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. The discussion at ]
- This crystal ball thing is *bleep*. According to the discussión i pinpointed. Any SB article within 6 years is okay. More than one editor deleted the page. I decided to launch the dispute because the deleting users were deleting because it was deleted already and I didn't want to contribute to the create-delete wheel war.
- There are some rumors from well known news agencies on the game. Just do a search of "2019 Super Bowl" and you'll see. User:Presbitow (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - No article until there's something substantive to say about it, period. Tarc (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. I didn't realize this would happen as a result of the protection. Article was listed back in 2010 so at best this should go back up for deleteion Wizardman (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note the edit above was not made by Wizardman but was made by impersonating user Wizradman (talk) who then altered the signature. JohnCD (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't worry, everyone here makes mistakes. Just be careful next time. 108.6.38.122 (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. The RfD outcome from 2010 isn't enforceable, I'm afraid. DRV always holds that old decisions expire with the passage of time.—S Marshall T/C 16:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What do we relist, and where? There is no point having an AfD about Presbitow's dummy article about a "fantasy game", with guesses as "placeholders" for teams, scores etc. That was a proper
WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax deletion, and has no possible place in the mainspace: he can keep it in a sandbox page, if he likes, until there are real data to put in it.
- The previous versions, deleted on 3 Feb, were simply redirects to Super Bowl. We could re-run the 2010 RfD, but I suggest it would be simpler to take its result as allowing a redirect from a future numbered Super Bowl when, but not until, there is some reliably sourced information in the target, the main Super Bowl article, such as location and date. JohnCD (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, forget I spoke: the business with the Wizradman account tells me we aren't dealing with good faith users here. Keep salted and speedy close.—S Marshall T/C 19:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- One bad user is not enough to close a discussion. 22:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I was wrong, some of the earlier February 3 versions were more than redirects, but they were pretty content-free, with statements like "It may be held in Sports Authority Field at Mile High" and "The finalists to host the event will be announced in late 2014." JohnCD (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per search on google and above. A few sources from well known news outlets as to who is hosting the game can be found. Two editors involved are already admitting the deletion was premature — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizradman (talk • contribs)
- Speculation on who wants to host does not establish notability for a years-in-the-future sporting event. Super Bowl LII is legitimate as there are concrete details about the finalists for hosting. Tarc (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Something is fishy; the double-voting account "Wizradman" has transcluded @Wizardman:'s user & talk pages, and signed as him in #1. Tarc (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum; an IP, 174.236.68.211, is now trying to 174.236.68.211 alter what I pointed out above. Tarc (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and another IP, 174.252.1.167, tried again. JohnCD (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per sources found and legitimate edits to the page (with the template in place). I doubt the issue above will outcome of the discussion, but WM needs to be notified to confirm the edits. PlayChess14 (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The history shows that the edit was not made by Wizardman; the signature was forged. I have notified WM and blocked the impersonator. JohnCD (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Good, back to focusing on the article's eligabilty. 75.127.185.74 (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn, wide array of sources: [1] [2] [3] [4]. Nothing wrong with mentioning potential candidates and voting will be soon. 173.220.36.124 (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have stricken the votes of the "Wizradman" impostor above, and strongly suspect that the IPs voting above are either direct socks or colluding associates. All IP votes should be tossed IMO, and semi-protection of the DRV considered. Tarc (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tarc:. Unless you're not aware of AGF, if IP users can edit there is no reason to believe they can't voice their opinion. the WM imposter slipped by initially but it's been resolved and further comments should be made on the article's existence. I did point out there is coverage by supplying a URL on SB LIII. 108.6.38.122 (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ]
- @Tarc:: The only proven "sock" is the User:Wizradman. Therefore you can't assume every anon is voting in bad faith. You don't have to AGF is the editor is clearly annoying others. I was only suggesting not to be quick to assume everyone that votes against your desired outcome is a "sock". 108.6.38.122 (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, I don't see the point of having an article on an event so far in advance, but if the majority really wants it I don't mind if it's overturned. Wizardman 23:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope this is the real person now. 108.6.38.122 (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It is, edit diffs don't lie. Presbitow (talk) 09:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse An event taking place in 2019, with no information at all available yet? Be serious, please! --Randykitty (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you tried the external links above? Many are already reporting potential candidates (Denver, Philadelphia, Chicago and New England) for a cold weather game, just as LII has Minnesota bidding to have it in their new stadium. Presbitow (talk) 09:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are nothing but gossip and speculation, statements like "Seattle is in the very preliminary stages of considering a bid". Articles about far future events can be OK when there are solid facts - we have 2020 Summer Olympics because the place and date are known; but for SB LIII, it isn't even decided yet who will be eligible to bid. JohnCD (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The redirect Super Bowl LIV was deleted, but again keep in mind the discussion took place just over 4 years ago. I will not try to contest it until this discussion is over. Presbitow (talk) 09:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse I'm not all that happy about any of these "will be held" articles but in any case until there is a site selection there's no point in an article. Mangoe (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse until there's at least a definite site and so on. The lame attempt at impersonation doesn't exactly convince me this is a good-faith attempt to save valuable content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist. I have no opinion of my own about how many should have separate articles listed, but I do not see the least consensus in the discussion, except that there was no support for keeping the two furthest away, M and C. DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Super Bowl C is Super Bowl 100 and M is 500, so those can stay deleted without question (until the bidding process gets underway, of course). 108.6.38.122 (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. There is absolutely no
unverifiable rumored location selection; the rest of the article is simply made up. Why would we want to retain blatantly falsified information? — Josh3580talk/hist 18:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC) [reply
- Endorse deletion - Seems to be just an article made for the sake of making an article. Ithinkicahn (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is the last legitimate edit (with the correct template). Presbitow (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As the nominator has just been blocked for socking this whole mess (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Presbitow), can this be closed now? Every call to overturn or relist save DGG's was fraudulent. Tarc (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not the proper procedure, just let it run its course, as consensus is likely to be against restoration. KonveyorBelt 17:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- We're less than 24h from the standard 7-day run. Requesting a close of a filing made in bad faith and disrupted by the same person where the outcome is crystal-clear is not out of bounds. Tarc (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
