WP:NACD, I'm therefore reopening and re-closing the AfD on my own authority as an administrator. This new closure can of course be challenged again at DRV. Sandstein 15:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Out of process early closure after only 2 days. Would probably have been closed as keep regardless due to the sheer amount of votes, but the sourcing was still being discussed after the last relist, and the closer's recent record doesn't inspire confidence that his snow keep was the best decision. This should be allowed to run its course normally.
Overturn and relist as the discussion since the last relist was not moving towards a consensus, but instead reiterating the prior disagreements. Best to let the process play out.
Obviously overturn and relist — have no idea what the closer could have been thinking. Discussion was ongoing, and at least one participant (me) was waiting for more thorough discussion of sources before !voting. JBL (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Pointless to overturn, it's a keep anyway. Govvy (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist because the relist was only one day prior to the close, and because consensus at that point was that there was 1
WP:NOTAVOTE) was not clear at the time of the close, and !votes were still coming in. It should have been allowed to run longer to see if consensus formed. Levivich 15:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Technically this should be Overturn and Relist, but since they're obviously notable anyway, that seems to be pointless, so Endorse. We don't need to waste anyone else's time. Black Kite (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it's obviously notable then ar1gue it in the AfD once it's reopened, not here.
Well that would a bit difficult unless I had the ability to time travel, since the AfD is closed. Together with that and your "dumb closing statement" comment from below, perhaps you need to think about
WP:CIVIL, because you're giving the impression of someone who is being unnecessarily unpleasant. Black Kite (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
And that was an edit above to add "once it's reopened", with a edit summary of "duh" [2]. Excellent work. Black Kite (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting would just be a waste of time, the consensus to keep was clear. Endorse. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 16:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - clear consensus, and also the AFD was open for 9 days, not the 2 that the OP claims. It was only re-listed for 2, but that is not the same, and also does not matter when consensus was so clear. GiantSnowman 16:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I'm with Black Kite on this one. There's no way a non-admin should have been overriden User:Fenix down's relist 48-hours later without much new happening. At the same time, I can't understand why Fenix had relisted this after dozens of references, some meeting GNG, had been added to the artice before they relisted it, and was already discussing that with them on his talk page. I'd have brought the relist here or an appropriate forum, except that seemed POINTy, and the situation would resolve itself within a week. There's no point restarting an almost snowing keep on a significantly improved article that even User:Ficaia, who nominated it, had tried to withdraw 48 hours after it's nomination. Nfitz (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist as it had been relisted only couple of days prior, discussion was ongoing and it looks like there was only real consensus of 1 GNG source. Whatever the outcome will be, I feel it would be best to let the process play out and close this properly. Alvaldi (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Perhaps best, that an administrator had closed the AFD. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The article was listed on AFD for 9 days, not 2. The relist rules clearly state that a relisted AFD may be closed as soon as consensus is clear, without the need to wait for a further 7 days. Stifle (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. No prospect of consensus to delete. Poor AfD nomination. Pointless comment-free relist. If you think it should be deleted, see advice at
WP:RENOM. If you think the discussion was becoming productive, continue on the article talk page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Overturn and relist. The relist should have been observed, so this close was out of process. Additionally, controversial closes, such as ones where the closer must actually weigh !votes rather than count them, should absolutely not be performed by non-administrators. I also share JayBeeEll's concern that the majority of keeps were entirely ignorant of the new (and old) NSPORT guidelines and should have been disregarded. JoelleJay (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Over 2 dozen references were added to the article,
Gale A84518769 from 2001, which also meets GNG. What's your issue with that reference? Nfitz (talk) 05:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
That's like a 300-word article published in
WP:NOTAVOTE." Then the closer should close this as delete (or draftify, which is what I'd have !voted if I had voted). I remember this from the days when I regularly participated in FOOTY AFDs. People would put forward a paragraph and claim it's SIGCOV and meets GNG. I guess that hasn't changed. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯Levivich 16:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
And only 93 words are independent -- the quotes from the coach must be ignored since he is not independent of Campbell. Routine signing cruft. JoelleJay (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, a closer should look at that, and say "this is not SIGCOV, no matter how many editors say it is, because
Dumping a bunch of trivial mentions/prosifying stats is the definition of
WP:REFBOMB
.
SPORTCRIT presumes notability only if there are multiple SIGCOV sources. The single SIGCOV source requirement is for preventing automatic deletion of articles that are not under AfD discussion, it does not obviate the ultimate requirement of meeting GNG. And as Levivich said, that Gale article is clearly routine signing hype and does not contribute to GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist- so that the actual requirements based on what the notability guidelines actually say can be adequately assessed. ReykYO! 04:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse all the issues about WP:GNG/SIGCOV had been addressed with the article improved by that point. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 07:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse It's clearly a keep, both in discussion and in looking at the current version of the article, and while procedurally incorrect, consensus was clear and relisting won't delete this article. SportingFlyerT·C 15:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Consensus seems clear and I don't believe relisting would change anything.
Endorse It's not clear that the first relist was necessary or proper. Per
WP:BATTLE behavior and this outcome should be internalized and not be repeated. Jclemens (talk) 04:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I said it would probably be closed as keep due to the vote count (as it was), not that it should. But there was no consensus that the sourcing was enough for GNG.
Admins don't have the authority to overturn numerical preponderance because that outcome is not compliant with a guideline, which notability is. Read
WP:NHC: each references policy, not guidelines, and the former enumerates core policies and does not include notability anywhere in there. I don't know where people get the idea closers can discount !votes based on guidelines, since there's simply no policy allowing it: the ability to override by local consensus is what differentiates policy and guideline. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I think you overlooked the second last paragraph of
WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS: Per "ignore all rules", a local consensus can suspend a guideline in a particular case where suspension is in the encyclopedia's best interests, but this should be no less exceptional in deletion than in any other area.BilledMammal (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, absolutely. Most admins will ignore rationale-free
WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE !votes, and by rationale-free I include things like "Has enough sources" or "not enough sources". However, it's far more difficult to determine when you have disagreement about how good those sources are, as then it's not a binary notable/non-notable issue. Black Kite (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Overturn and relist - This one requires a thorough assessment of the arguments and whether or not the sourcing actually meets the requirements, not just a vote count, and is a poor candidate for NAC. I would also hope for a closing statement that explains their reasoning, since we're setting a precedent for edge cases like this. –dlthewave☎ 13:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Was listed for 9 days, consensus is clear. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse:
The AFD was open for 9 days. It was open on the relist for 2 days, and the rule to wait for 7 days does not mean to wait for 7 days after a relist.
The closer's statement that there was a consensus to keep is correct.
The closer should be cautioned about eager-beaver
non-admin closes
of AFDs.
The admins say that there isn't a significant backlog of AFDs, so that NACs are not essentially, only permitted.
Sometimes overly eager NAC closures come to DRV. Usually, the close was correct but the XFD was contentious, and so should not have been closed by NAC.
Weak Endorse Per same reasoning and points described by Robert McClenon in the post just above this one. The discussion and results were problematic, but the close was correct. Any different close would have been a supervote. North8000 (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse NAC are not to be given any less weight than admin closures, and discussion had been open 9 days, a "consensus keep" closure is clearly within the remit here. --Jayron32 12:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse clear consensus to keep.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist As consensus is based on strength of argument, not votes asserting (falsely) the inherent notability of footballers. AfD is not a vote. The multiple keep votes suggesting automatic notability of footballers should be disregarded as clearly violating community consensus. AusLondonder (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The no consensus close is based on the premise that "policy is uncertain" on the notability of footballers and any deletion nominations should be postponed until discussion is completed at
WP:NFOOTYNEW. While I agree that we should be cautious about deleting articles that could be notable under new guidelines, the presumption of notability has been removed from all NSPORTS SNGs and NFOOTYNEW, if adopted, would only tell us whether the required significant coverage is likely to exist. There's no need to wait until a new guideline is adopted, as it wouldn't change the outcome for an article that has no SIGCOG sources whatsoever. I request that the discussion (which was relisted just yesterday by Fenix down) be reopened, allowed to run for a full week and then closed based on consensus. –dlthewave☎ 01:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Overturn and relist A strange closing decision. The new notability rules are quite clear and were changed several weeks ago at this point. So the close should be made one way or the other and not be put as "No consensus" as some sort of supervote on "we just don't know". SilverserenC 02:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy overturn Out of process early closure. Dumb closing statement; the policy isn't uncertain, as SPORTCRIT is obviously the applicable guideline. Nonexistent guidelines like NFOOTYNEW have no bearing on present discussions.
WP:SPORTCRIT #5, which requires articles with no significant coverage be deleted. BilledMammal (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Speedy overturn. This was a bizarrely out-of-process close with zero grounding in current P&Gs (or old ones, for that matter). JoelleJay (talk) 06:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close -
WP:FORUMSHOPing, and the AN discussion surely takes precedent. Nfitz (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Certainly doesn't. Deletion decisions are reviewed here, not on the AN.—S MarshallT/C 07:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except that 力 directly said to take the closes to DRV in that AN thread. SilverserenC 07:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow I missed that the AN reference was just about insults, not the close itself; most of the following discussion there has been about the close. My apologies. Nfitz (talk) 07:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, too controversial for NAC at this point in time.—S MarshallT/C 07:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. A non-admin over-riding an Admin just isn't on, especially when things are controversial. That said, I'm concerned about User:Fenix down's threat to supervote - which may bring us back here again soon. Nfitz (talk) 07:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 08:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and re-list purely because it should not have been closed the day after re-listing. GiantSnowman 08:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist because, as stated above, the point of relisting is to give more time for a consensus to form, and closing the day after is contrary to that purpose.
Overturn and relist — obviously. JBL (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist, though I suspect the outcome will end up being the same. Black Kite (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist, per above. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Perhaps best that an administrator had closed the AFD. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (revert the close) WP:Supervote and WP:BADNAC. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Inexplicable premature close if the outcome is "no consensus". Let the relist(s) play out. Any discussion at
WP:NFOOTYNEW is independent, as it is not an accepted guideline at this point.—Bagumba (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Overturn and relist, per all of the above. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist on procedural grounds - I would have endorsed if there was a week between relisting and the close as I agree with the close. SportingFlyerT·C 15:04, 25 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.
The no consensus close is based on the premise that consensus cannot be reached until discussion at
WP:NFOOTYNEW is complete. While I agree that we should be cautious about deleting articles that could be notable under new guidelines, the presumption of notability has been removed from all NSPORTS SNGs and NFOOTYNEW, if adopted, would only tell us whether the required significant coverage is likely to exist. There's no need to wait until a new guideline is adopted, as it wouldn't change the outcome for an article that has no SIGCOG sources whatsoever. I request that the discussion (which was relisted just yesterday by Fenix down) be reopened, allowed to run for a full week and then closed based on consensus. –dlthewave☎ 01:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Overturn and relist A strange closing decision. The new notability rules are quite clear and were changed several weeks ago at this point. So the close should be made one way or the other and not be put as "No consensus" as some sort of supervote on "we just don't know". SilverserenC 02:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy overturn Out of process early closure. Dumb closing statement. Nonexistent guidelines like NFOOTYNEW have no bearing on present discussions, SPORTCRIT is what matters.
WP:SPORTCRIT #5, which requires articles with no significant coverage be deleted. BilledMammal (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Speedy overturn. As with the other AfD, this was a completely inappropriate close both procedurally and based on P&Gs. JoelleJay (talk) 06:04, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. A non-admin over-riding an Admin just isn't on, especially when things are controversial. That said, I'm concerned about User:Fenix down's threat to supervote - which may bring us back here again soon. Nfitz (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I was the only one who felt a redirect was the best option, I can't honestly see enough evidence online that demonstrates GNG, regardless of the player, playing for the most notable club in Sweden. Govvy (talk) 08:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 08:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and re-list purely because it should not have been closed two days after re-listing. GiantSnowman 08:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist on the grounds that closing the day after a relist, when the two new !votes being a "keep" and a "delete", is just a strange thing to do.
The article Dream Games was deleted on the 24th of March, 2022 even though there were reliable sources and the latest decision was Keep. The article was added to the
Comment: The filer of this DRV placed it in the wrong section with the effect that it was reverted by a maintenance bot. I am restoring it here. Stifle (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Deletion review is a venue where failures to follow deletion process are handled. It is not a venue to argue or re-argue points about the quality of the article; the time and place for this was the AFD. Stifle (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The articles presented here don't seem like a clear error was made in deleting the article, though I have no problem if someone wants to create a draft if sources were better. There were promotional and NCORP concerns but also delete !voters who didn't think notability was that far off, but the overall deletion appears correct from the discussion. SportingFlyerT·C 15:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
temp undeleted for DRVWilyD 21:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Consensus was too delete. Respect that decision, for at least six months. If you really think consensus was wrong, try draftspace and the advice at
