- Robin Haley (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Consensus was not reached and discussion was closed with no rationale stated by closing admin, though was later provided upon request on closing admin's talk page here. However, the rationale provided doesn't reflect the discussion/consensus. Hmlarson (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree with you. The challenge was: "This person is not notable". Such a challenge is easily refuted by providing evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. But it cannot be refuted by unsupported opinion statements. The AfD was correctly closed. However, if you can provide evidence of significant coverage in more than one independent, reliable source, then we at DRV will almost certainly overturn its outcome.—S Marshall T/C 18:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You are entitled to your opinion, however
WP:DP policy states:
- 1) If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.
- 2) If an article on a notable topic severely fails (emphasis added) the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD.
- 3) The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so. Therefore, if there is no rough consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging, or redirecting as appropriate.
- Essays were not the only arguments provided and consensus was not reached. In all of the AFDs I've seen and been involved in, rationale is clearly stated by the closing editor or admin. Strange to not include one here - is that procedure? Hmlarson (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's up to you, Hmlarson, but if you do intend to provide any additional sources, I'd suggest that listing them here should be an early priority.—S Marshall T/C 20:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice edit summary. Actually not old...but again your opinion. Hmlarson (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not entirely certain how the close is said to "not fit the discussion". Those editors who discussed referencing clearly indicated that they did not find the available reference material suitable to sustain an article. Those who argued to keep did not in any way show that to be wrong, but made references to a Wikiproject essay (not policy or guideline), and did not provide any reason to believe that there was more material out there. Of course, if more references do turn up or are written in the future, then as S Marshall says, we can always reconsider in light of that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Closer correctly read consensus. Lister is misconceived as to policy. Stifle (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Every keep was an ]
- Endorse - consensus was to delete. However, I think it would be worthwhile for the closer to write a brief closing statement explaining their thinking in cases like this, where the numeric support is so evenly divided. It is human nature to be more accepting of an unfavorable outcome if we know that our concerns and opinions have at least been read and acknowledged. Thparkth (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse (as participant) given the closer's explanation here. However I do think it would be helpful in this case for the closer to amend the discussion to add their rationale, as it's not an obvious conclusion from a quick glance at the article. Without delving into the details, it does look like there are equally weighted arguments on both sides; it takes the interpretation of MANOTE as an essay to draw the conclusion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - The close was amply supported by several well reasoned "delete" discussion points. Quite frankly, WP:MMA's captive notability "guideline" (i.e. essay) is only the most egregious of a number of the sports WikiProjects' in-house standards that confuse the concept of Wikipedia notability with their perceived importance of the subjects. They also routinely accept trivial and WP:ROUTINE coverage of subjects as being "significant". All of the NSPORTS specific notability guidelines are supposed to be indicators of the likelihood that subjects that satisfy the criteria will also satisfy a full-blown critical GNG analysis with significant coverage of the subject in multiple, independent, reliable sources. WP:MMA's in-house notability essay clearly fails in that regard, and any "keep" !votes based on it may be rightly discounted. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
