Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 April 2

WP:NACD. This closure needs explaining. The closer, AssumeGoodWraith is advised to obtain more AfD experience before attempting to close AfDs. Sandstein 08:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This was closed by

WP:V) are much more convincing than what looks like a claim to inherent notability. Might be an instance of something similar to WP:Relist bias (given that the closer did not have access to the delete option). Should be overturned to delete. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

Endorse per
WP:BEFORE efforts devoted to the subject; even if it was deleted, it would be at most a soft delete. Regardless, no consensus was a decent read, even by a non-admin, because the participation dearth almost demanded such, although the closing statement could have been better. Of all the Great Wrongs to be Righted on Wikipedia deletion, this seems an odd one to fret over. Jclemens (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Overturn BADNAC. It could have been reasonably closed as "delete", and so it was not an appropriate NAC. It could not have been closed as a "keep". On the basis of the discussion, I think it leans "delete", but in a few minutes I think I cam finding sources, eg https://www.emirates247.com/sports/other/arabian-gulf-rugby-stars-boost-uae-squad-2011-09-20-1.419695. Why did the nominator not check? It does not fail WP:V. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't advise a non-admin to close a sports AfD at the moment. Closing statement is terrible and can't stand.—S Marshall T/C 08:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse - It was a terrible closing statement, but there is one fact. The AFD wasn't going anywhere. Either No Consensus or Delete would have been a valid closure. It really didn't require another Relist. It should have been left for an admin, who would have had the same result. Duh. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. The two delete !voters raised the policy-based argument that the article had insufficient sourcing to meet
WP:V. This was not rebutted. Had we not already had endorsements here, I would have vacated the close and deleted. Stifle (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: At the time of the close of the AfD, the article did not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability as it had no sources and the only "keep" AfD participant did not provide any sources. A more accurate close would be "delete" based on Wikipedia:Verifiability. To address the verifiability concerns, I expanded and added sources to the article. Cunard (talk) 08:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.