Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< December 2021 Deletion review archives February 2022 >

31 January 2022

30 January 2022

  • Landon Tewers – No consensus. It is unclear what the request in this case is. As such opinions vary considerably, and there is no consensus for any particular action. To the extent that a move of the draftified article back to mainspace might be requested, my understanding is that this is an editorial decision which is neither prohibited nor required by this discussion, and which does not require DRV authorization. Sandstein 12:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Landon Tewers (talk|edit|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]
  • 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]

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

29 January 2022

28 January 2022

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Paul Heitz (talk|edit|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: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
    ]
  • 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]
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
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]
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:
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]
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]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Ivar Virgin – deletion endorsed. Closing rationales are generally the exception, used for AFDs where the result may cause some controversy and therefore warrants some explanation. In this case there is a clear consensus that the result of the original AFD was so obvious that no rationale was required. Nor has any other persuasive reason for overturning the result garnered any support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ivar Virgin (talk|edit|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: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: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
    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
    ]
  • 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]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • WP:NACD, this AfD closure is reopened in my individual capacity as an administrator, with the request that it be re-closed accordingly. Sandstein 21:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Male expendability (talk|edit|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: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
    ]
  • 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
    ]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 January 2022

  • WP:REFUND to restore the page and that the creator is capable of writing a competent article about this topic, which I personally have some doubts about. Sandstein 13:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ibrahim Al-Dulaimi (talk|edit|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]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Template:Martina Navratilova, Template:Naomi Osaka, Template:Chris Evert and Template:Bob and Mike Bryan – Seems like there is a consensus to relist here - a fair amount of the initial comments are talking about the merits of the templates themselves rather than the merits of the close (per
    WP:DRVPURPOSE the main scope of deletion review) but all comments boil down to arguments about whether the delete outcome was appropriate or are recommending further discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Martina Navratilova (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Template:Naomi Osaka (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Template:Chris Evert (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Template:Bob and Mike Bryan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

While I agree with the elimination of most of 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]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

26 January 2022

25 January 2022

24 January 2022

23 January 2022

22 January 2022

21 January 2022

20 January 2022

  • Pawandeep Rajan – Leave redirect for now, since consensus is to not overturn the redirect but folks also say that this isn't quite within the scope of deletion review [no deletion took place]. The suggestion made is to present evidence of the claims of notability, with a draft and Talk:Indian Idol being two sites mentioned here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Pawandeep Rajan (talk|edit|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
    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,
    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
    ]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 January 2022

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
James Cook (footballer, born 1885) (talk|edit|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
]

  • 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
    ]
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]
  • 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]
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
Avilich (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Endorse per Bagumba and
    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
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.
    talk) 22:25, 5 February 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Letha Weapons (talk|edit|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: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
    ]
  • 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]
  • 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]
@
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]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 January 2022

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Himachal Pradesh (talk|edit|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
    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
      ]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft: Ade Bajomo (talk|edit|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]

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

17 January 2022

  • effective communication is required for participating in a collaborative project such as Wikipedia. Sandstein 08:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
WP:test123 (talk|edit|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,
here by the way. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:05, 17 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
    ]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 January 2022

  • Hariharan Pillai Happy Aanu – Recreation of the article is allowed. Sandstein 08:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
talk|edit|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
    ]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 January 2022

14 January 2022

13 January 2022

  • help desk if you need assistance. Hut 8.5 12:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Pantyhose_for_men (talk|edit|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:AFDHOWTO. Thincat (talk) 09:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 January 2022

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Nicolás Atanes (talk|edit|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]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Everything Will Be OK – "Merge" closure overturned. There's consensus for as much, but no consensus for whether the AfD should also be relisted or whether merger proposals should be made on the talk page. Interested editors are free to proceed as they see fit. Sandstein 07:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Everything Will Be OK (talk|edit|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]

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

11 January 2022

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of Simple series video games (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe this list is relevant and a good extension of the main article,

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
    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.
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: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]
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
    ]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Gour Govinda Swami (talk|edit|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]
  • 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
    ]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Pete Vainowski (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore
)

Pete Vainowski was a star

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: @

Lepricavark: @JoelleJay: @Onel5969: BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Nobody pinged the nominator,
Avilich (talk) 06:07, 19 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: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]
@
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
    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
    ]
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]
Comment. A couple things I want to note. A) NSPORT explicitly mentions in at least three places that it does not confer notability directly and that GNG must be met. B) In my opinion, the argument that SIGCOV might exist somewhere was sufficiently rebutted. I should preface this by saying there are cases where non-SIGCOV material is discovered during AfD that I consider reasonable enough evidence for the existence of offline SIGCOV to strike or switch my !vote. But in the case of Vainowski I sincerely do not think an encyclopedic biography is possible. For one, the bulk of the article was this paragraph:

A player identified by the name "Vainowski" or "Vanowski" also played line positions for other professional football teams in Illinois from 1923 through the early 1930s, including the following appearances:

"Vanowski" played for the Rockford Gophers during the 1923 season, recording a safety against the Moline Indians.
"Vainowski" (sometimes referred to "Vanowski") played at the right guard and left guard positions for Joey Sternaman's Pullman Panthers of the Midwest Football League in 1924. He was described as one of the "shining lights of the Pullman squad."
"Vanowski" played for the Harvey Athletic Association (Harvey, Illinois) professional football team during the 1925 season.
"Vainowski" returned to the Pullman professional football team in 1929.

"Vainowski", identified as a 238-pound tackle out of Loyola, again played for Chicago's Pullman Panthers in 1931.

No one besides a wikipedia editor has made a connection between these Vainowskis and our Pete; they're probably the same person but Struck since an updated version of the article had verified these were the same people the mentions are so brief (trivial, even) that, on top of being original research, their DUEness is also questionable. Even worse, there were just two sources that had a full name: two small local obits (submitted by the family) from the 1950s that describe his career at a telephone company but don't even mention he played football. Either this was a different Pete S Vainowski, or Vainowski/his family did not consider his time in the NFL important enough for even a single clause in his obituary. Then there's the fact that someone wrote in to a newspaper in ~1935 asking about his team's composition in 1926 and a journalist who was seemingly in contact with the team's manager said there wasn't any further info on players that season because the manager admitted he kept poor records. Keep in mind newspapers curated thousands of clippings from other newspapers on specific topics, so if more details existed on that team's entire season in contemporary reports it's very likely they would have found something in their archives. They did not, and from that I believe we can reasonably assume significant or even trivial coverage does not exist for all individual NFL players in this time period. JoelleJay (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@
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: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]
« 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]
Which sources provided even
WP:BASIC coverage? JoelleJay (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
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
]
  • "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
    ]
  • 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
      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
        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
        ]
  • 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]
    • 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: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]
All mentions of Vainowski

1. Database listing.
2. Database listing.
3. Peter S. Vainowski. Listed on the 1926 roster.
4. This came about when Norton was dropped in his tracks by Vanowski back of the Moline goal. Trivial mention in a routine game report.
5. Database listing of 1923 Gophers games, no mention of Vainowski.
6. L. G. Vainowski. Listed in the lineup of a routine game report.
7. Other shining lights of the Pullman squad were McFadden, fighting quarterback, and Vanowski, guard. Trivial mention in a routine game report.
8. Database listing of 1924 Pullman Panthers games, no mention of Vainowski.
9. Vanowski at tackle. Trivial mention in a routine game report.
10. R. G. Vanioski and Slagle for Vanioski. Trivial mentions in lineup and sub lists in a routine report on the game he is supposed to be notable for.
11. Right Guard Vainowski Trivial mention in the lineup of a routine game report.
12. ...the Panther reserve list includes ... Vainowski, tackle from Loyola, 238. Trivial mention in the lineup of a game announcement.
13. R. T. Vainowski and Bunis for Vainowski. Trivial mentions in the lineup and sub list of a routine game report.
14. Database listing.
15. Database listing (and

WP:OR
).
16. Peter S. Vainowski. Mass for Peter S. Vainowski, 54, of 7010 S. Campbell av., an Illinois Bell Telephone company employee for 34 years, will be said at 10:30 a. m. Saturday in St. Adrian's church, 7000 S. Washtenaw av. He died Tuesday in Billings hospiltal [sic]. Surviving are his widow, Agnes; two sons, Robert, a Tribune classified advertising department employe [sic] and Gregory; a daughter, Mrs. Diane Gorski; his mother, Mrs. Mary Vainauskas, and a sister. Routine obituary in the Tribune that gives as much detail on the professional career of his son (a Tribune employee) as it does on his.
17. Vainowski—Peter S. Vainowski, aged 54, July 16, 1957, beloved husband of Agnes, nee Grenda; fond father of Diane Gorski, Robert and Gregory; dear son of Mary Vainauskas; brother of Mary Kareiva; father-in-law of Gerald and Linda. Member of Royal Arcanum Oakwood council, No. 805. Employee of Illinois Bell Telephone company for 34 years. Resting at funeral home, 6845 S. Western avenue. Funeral Saturday, July 20, at 10 a. m., to St. Adrian's church. Solemn requiem high mass at 10:30 a. m. Interment St. Casimir's cemetery. Information, REpublic [sic] 7-8600. Routine obituary announcement.

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: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: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: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
]
(
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 (
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
    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]
  • Overturn If a majority of the participants correctly recognized that NSPORTS is bullshit and took an IAR position in order to rectify the bullshit, then that consensus should be upheld. An SNG which doesn't serve as an alternative to GNG is better off being put in Category:Wikipedia humor because it's laughable at how useless it is. The participants decided that NSPORTS should not be useless. Mlb96 (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The only laughable thing is people arguing that a page which does not have appropriate sourcing should be kept because it meets some arbitrary internal criteria. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If consensus decides that we should apply an internal criterion despite its arbitrariness, then that is what we should do. If you don't like it, then
    WP:MfD is an option. I'd probably vote in support of deleting NSPORTS, to be honest. A guideline is meant to make decisionmaking easier, but NSPORTS does the complete opposite. Mlb96 (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The participants did not think NSPORTS is bullshit (else they wouldn't have brought it up), they simply didn't know how it works. Like it or not, NSPORTS as it exists is also the result of a consensus of editors. And closers are mandated to discount votes that are not grounded on existing policies or guidelines, which was exactly the case with the keep voters here (some even backtracked on their comments and endorsed the outcome here). What you're effectively saying is that, despite every keep voter bringing NSPORTS up, this should be ignored just because you don't like NSPORTS. The venue for complaint is its talk page, not here.
Avilich (talk) 00:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The bullshit is the line In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should [usually interpreted as "must"] meet the General Notability Guideline. This line is bullshit and reduces the entire guideline to the same level as a humor page. The participants must have rejected this line per
WP:IAR; that is the only explanation for the keep !votes. Mlb96 (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The contention that nobody invoked IAR is hyper-techhnical. While nobody cited "IAR", that was the clear gist of my extensive commentary at the AfD. I acknowledged that SIGCOV was lacking at this time, but argued that the NFL, representing the tippy-top level of competition in American football, presented a special case in which the standard should not be enforced strictly, i.e., ignore/relax the rule. Cbl62 (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the arguments you made are consistent with the spirit of IAR (although perhaps weakened by your saying If it were to be deleted, it would not be a significant blow to Wikipedia's coverage of American football ;)), which is why I used "invoked" rather than something more passive. But I also think a closer would be rather reluctant to cite (participants' arguments of) IAR as a close reason without it being invoked explicitly, since IMO that's kinda making a prescriptive closure. JoelleJay (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That level of hyper-technicality would likely not even govern in a courtroom setting. Here, as there, the spirit and substance of the arguments should govern over the technicalities. Cbl62 (talk) 04:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To quote from your "thoughtful and detailed explanation": Its "intended" purpose is so editors can create articles on people whose GNG-meeting sources might be difficult to find but which we can be 95% sure do exist. Anyone "can create articles" on anything. I could create an article right now consisting of nothing but the words "pee pee poo poo"; I don't need a guideline to allow me to do this, article creation is allowed by default. Of course, such an article would be deleted, and that's when the notability guidelines matter: during deletion discussions. You have not presented a single instance in which, under your interpretation, it would make sense to cite NSPORTS at a deletion discussion. And that is because there is none, because under your interpretation, the page serves no purpose. It claims to create a "presumption" of notability, but this is an outright lie because anyone can challenge a lack of sourcing and then the presumption is reversed. Your "explanations" have only made it even clearer that NSPORTS serves no purpose. Therefore, we are better off ignoring the line In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline in order to make NSPORTS have a purpose. And that is what the users at this AfD must have done, and we should respect that consensus. Mlb96 (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone "can create articles" on anything. That is not true. Only registered autoconfirmed users can create articles, which means a large number of editors must go through AfC, where one source demonstrating the subject meets NSPORT is an automatic pass (unlike all the other articles where 2 pieces of SIGCOV must be produced). The junk article in your example would also be speedied immediately without going through AfD, so that's an irrelevant comparison. And anyway, NSPORT isn't for deletion discussions; it's not meant to be a crutch for people who can't find sources, and it's not an unimpeachable, eternal presumption that sources exist. It's merely a handy flag that tells other editors "the community has determined there's a 95% probability this subject meets GNG, don't worry about trying to find sources right now." It guides new editors on the type of subject they'll have an easy time finding refs for, and gives them much better assurance that even if they don't find SIGCOV themselves there's a good chance someone else will be able to. It reduces the time it takes for a mass-creator to generate an article on an entire Premier League team from like 3 minutes a player to like 45 seconds, which is a BIG motivator for certain people. This last point is very much a reason NSPORT still exists even now that Wiki is out of the exponential phase of growth and no longer needs to legitimize itself with how many articles it has.
That said, it does serve some purposes in AfD: among other things, it enables speedy/SNOW closes of nominations by people who clearly didn't do a BEFORE, without having to drag an article through AfD for 7 days. And it allows an editor to say, "Hey, I can see there's a section in Wisden on this guy but Google books won't show me the whole page; his teammates all have SIGCOV there so I think there's a very high chance he does too" and have that argument actually work. A subject who would otherwise not inspire AfD participants to do a deep-dive into newspapers.com or non-English media encourages more thorough analysis by both keep and delete !voters to either validate a criterion's presumption or disprove it.
we are better off ignoring the line In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline in order to make NSPORTS have a purpose. And that is what the users at this AfD must have done, and we should respect that consensus. We would also have to ignore the first sentence of NSPORT, much of the rest of the Applicable policies section, all of SPORTCRIT, and the FAQs. We would have to ignore the strong consensus of an extremely well-attended RfC on the topic, as well as the consensus produced by hundreds of AfD precedents. And it's not at all reasonable to claim each NSPORT-citing !voter is doing so just to prove a point about how stupid the guideline is; many are just not aware of how it works, and many others use it as a springboard to make more developed arguments (like Cbl62 did). JoelleJay (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except that anyone can challenge notability immediately, and if sources aren't found, then the article gets deleted because
WP:GNG takes precedence. So the don't worry about trying to find sources right now concept is wrong: you do need to find sources right now or else the article will be deleted, based on your interpretation of NSPORTS. If someone didn't do a BEFORE and sources are found, then the article is kept because of GNG, not NSPORTS. And if someone didn't do a BEFORE and sources aren't found, then the article is deleted because of GNG, not NSPORTS. So it's still useless. Mlb96 (talk) 07:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Except that if you want to write an article, you better do the search for sources BEFORE writing it (as
WP:V is a requirement in any and all cases), and not unloading it on somebody else. I hope that nobody is doing the silly thing of just going off through old football team rosters and adding a database entry article for everyone who ever played. If the article creator doesn't even bother to do a BEFORE search of their own, I can hardly understand how they complain that others haven't done so when others rightfully find that the article does not meet GNG. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

10 January 2022

9 January 2022

8 January 2022

7 January 2022

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Inclusion_criteria (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I disagreed with the close and followed the advice given here to attempt resolving it by leaving a request to reopen on the talk page of the closer. I see they took the request somewhat personally since they made reference to my request in the combative terms of being a "challenge" to them multiple times in their response to me. At any rate, my request to have the discussion reopened is based on the poor judgement of the closer [closing]. You will see that they also made factual error in their response in addition to the problems I have already pointed out.

1) In the case of the IP editor, the closer made the claim in their response to me giving them a heads up about this IP that: Consensus is judged by weight of argument, not by who makes the arguments. and But someone making a coherent RfD argument is prima facie evidence that they have some level of experience with how RfD works. Well, without rehashing that argument, I will say this - that IP editor never made any coherent arguments. In fact, they made no arguments at all. They simply wrote a paragraph carrying on about me reverting on another page, and added a comment to agree with the OP. So, you see that assessment resulted in factual error, and is evidence the closer read it incorrectly.

2) Here, you will see the judgement of evidence is dubious by the closer; They presented evidence of 2,000 usages of it to mean list inclusion. You presented evidence of 44,000 usages of a related but different term to mean notability. where you notice that overwhelming evidence is rejected because of its relevance and then here we notice completely subjective and fabricated (not to mention flimsy) "evidence" is accepted as relevant: This is a projectspace redirect, so the audience is editors, not readers. Where !voters (a subset of editors) expect a shortcut to point is relevant.

3) Closer admits mistakes were made (even if not in my favor). However, they say they were prepared to reopen, but saw no other way to close. This strongly suggests to me the only possible outcome they could see was closing the discussion one way or the other. The fact they could not see an alternative of reopening the discussion to let it run some more is indicative of poor closing insight. I do not have any closing experience, but if it were me, and the last comment were by a somewhat suspect IP editor, I would not have said to myself, "ok, that cinches it!", I would have waited for at least one more experienced editor to comment.

Overturn and propose closer reverse changes and reopen discussion. Huggums537 (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will mostly let
    /24 IP range has been active in projectspace for two years. Please reword or strike your characterization of them. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 17:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I will not reword anything. You prove absolutely nothing that lends credit to the IP, and admit yourself that you made your decision based on a "maybe"; Is it the same person? Maybe, maybe not. That doesn't even count the fact that you counted arguments they never even made, unless you were just counting their "numerical strength", as you suggest, and "cinched it" with an IP of half a dozen edits that you admit "maybe" has credibility. Huggums537 (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've said all I have to say about my close, and my concerns here are rather about your conduct, I will reply on your talk. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 18:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – with four editors in favor of disambiguation and a fifth in favor of an even more aggressive change, I don't see how the discussion could possibly have been closed in favor of the single editor arguing for the status quo. The majority made perfectly reasonable arguments, and it would be a
    supervote for the closer to discount them. I don't find any of the other objections to the close to be any more convincing: unregistered users are not inherently "suspect", and relisting a forty-five-day-old discussion would not be prudent. (As for the suggestion that Tamzin has "poor judgment"...well, let's just say that I'd be more than happy for this redlink to turn blue sometime soon.) I'm not really sure why this eminently low-stakes matter has provoked such strong feelings, but c'est la vie, I suppose. The outcome was reasonable and reasonably explained: there's nothing for us to do here, and I would gently encourage the appellant to move on. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Endorse I have nothing to add to what Extraordinary Writ said, other than perhaps that there is no "alternatives to disambiguation" policy that might overcome a numerical disproportion. Jclemens (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Extraordinary Writ. In particular, strongly endorse the view that unregistered users are not inherently "suspect". — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I also share a view that unregistered users are not inherently "suspect", and I reject any implications that I suggested anything otherwise. Huggums537 (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Huggums537: If you are being misunderstood by all, what did you suggest with the IP editor comment that you made while challenging the close? Jay (talk) 08:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My main concern is that there is a big difference between what someone thinks about all unregistered users versus whatever points may be brought up by someone about any one specific IP user, and that is the distinction I wanted to be understood with my comment here. Huggums537 (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, if someone has anything to say at all about a single IP editor, it is not equivalent to, or the same thing as saying that selfsame thing across the board for all unregistered users. Huggums537 (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as original nominator. We do not need to relitigate this debate a million times so I will not be talking about the content of the arguments, just the close. The debate lasted a month and a half, with two relists, and only one user opposing disambiguation, and I don't see how that can be read as a lack of consensus justifying another relist. I am not sure where this whole idea about the IP cinching it comes from, as it doesn't appear to be mentioned anywhere on the RfD page, but ignoring the vote entirely just by virtue of being written by an unregistered user is frankly ridiculous - they are very clearly not completely inexperienced as their first edit on that IP was to reasonably answer a {{Help me}} request (which IPs on the same /24 have done for two years, suggesting that it is likely they are all the same person). eviolite (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw review Eviolite has made a convincing case for the credibility of the IP editor. I still think Tamzin could have done a far better job of making a good case with all of the evidence, but her numerical count is correct so I withdraw the review. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin comment: This was closed as "withdrawn" by an IP, but the instructions provide: "Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf)." I have therefore reverted the closure, and it would be up to Huggums537 to close this request as "endorsed" if they want to do so. Sandstein 10:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I kind of assumed that by making an official statement of withdrawing the nomination, I was asking someone to close the review on my behalf by default. However, I do appreciate the opportunity to do my first close here, but I'm currently on mobile so I don't think I have the tools to do it until I can get on my computer tonight. If someone would like to speedily close on my behalf then they are welcome to do so. Otherwise, I will do so when I get an opportunity. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I do not see what (if anything) a further relisting would have achieved. Closers are expected to use their judgment to close a discussion that's clearly had all the contributors it's going to have, not take the easy option of sending it round again for another spin. Stifle (talk) 12:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Good close. As there is no deletion, new information or arguments should not come to DRV. Use Wikipedia talk:Inclusion criteria to further discuss. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the suggestion. I should have thought of that to begin with, since it probably would have been far less confrontational in nature. However, this is what was suggested by the closer when I disagreed with the close. Anyways, I'm closing this now. Huggums537 (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 January 2022

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Administrative action review (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closer was involved and is already blowing off a request to reopen. No good will come from short circuiting this discussion so can someone uninvolved reopen it please?

Spartaz Humbug! 21:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

I'll re-open it in the hope of someone uninvolved coming to the same conclusion. I'd say Wbm1058 has already, but I'll just move out of this entirely and it can be re-closed properly. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close This is a completely unnecessary DRV. Process for process' sake...
    talk) 21:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Meh The request to reopen Spartaz is referring to is here. I don't think "blowing off" my request is accurate. I agree they were semi-involved, but on reflection, I don't think there's anything to be gained by this. It seems impossible to imagine the MFD closing as other than "procedural close" or "no consensus". --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's open again. If I understand correctly, the main concern, if not perhaps the only reasonable one, is about my involvement at
    WP:RFA2021/P#Passed:_6C_Administrative_action_review. Fair point: So if someone uninvolved comes to the same conclusion, I hope it's fine. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 January 2022

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:DSC02280.JPG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore
)

Contesting the claim of "orphaned, unencyclopedic" at 

FoP-USonly}}.  JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

4 January 2022

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Portal:Current events/April 1994 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is now the only redlink at

talk) 15:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • I think that the two closers, User:Daniel and User:Explicit, should have been invited to a discussion on this prior to this DRV. — SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Joe, thanks for the ping. My closes were the "procedural keep" ones, and aren't the ones being challenged here. I closed them that way because there was a parallel discussion happening elsewhere, which limited participation and made closing it to allow the discussion elsewhere the best option (imo). I don't think my close is the one really being tested here, and I don't have a view on the other close (which occurred under different circumstances to mine). Cheers, Daniel (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Yat Siu – Article sent to AfD by interested editors. Parallel discussion happening at one of the many noticeboards we have regarding user conduct. DRV has discharged its purpose, closing this. Daniel (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Yat Siu (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Timeline of Cunard's and David Gerard's edits at Yat Siu:

Timeline
  1. Cunard at 11:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)‎: "Restored article after adding a source and removing promotional material. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline through significant coverage in https://www.afr.com/companies/financial-services/if-you-haven-t-heard-of-this-2-2b-crypto-co-founder-you-soon-will-20211103-p595ph and https://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/long-reads/article/2101469/internet-whizz-yat-siu-programming-13-and-landing."
  2. David Gerard at 00:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC): "Reverted edits by Cunard (talk) to last version by John B123"
  3. Cunard at 00:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC): "Undid revision 1063233628 by David Gerard (talk), reverted unexplained revert to redirect which was an inappropriate use of rollback. Per
    WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT, please take this to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
    if you disagree with restoration."
  4. David Gerard at 00:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC): "Restored revision 1063233628 by David Gerard (talk): Please keep to consensus".

The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline through these two sources which I had added to the article:

  1. Whyte, Jemima (2021-11-26). "If you haven't heard of this $2.2b crypto co-founder you soon will". Australian Financial Review. Archived from the original on 2021-12-30. Retrieved 2021-12-30.
  2. "How internet whizz Yat Siu got an early start". South China Morning Post. 2017-07-06. Retrieved 2019-09-09.

David Gerard stated in a revert to redirect: "Please keep to consensus". I started a discussion at Talk:Yat Siu#Where was the consensus to redirect this page to Animoca Brands? at 00:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC) and made a followup post at 15:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC). The posts asked David Gerard for a link to the discussion where a consensus to redirect was formed. I did not receive a reply from David Gerard. I then made a post on User talk:David Gerard at 23:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC) repeating my question but still did not receive a reply.[reply]

As my talk page posts did not produce any discussion, and as I do not want to edit war to restore the article again, I am taking this to deletion review to ask for the community to review this. If there was a previous consensus at an AfD to redirect this article, I would like there to be a new consensus to restore the article. Cunard (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment we can AFD this, sure - David Gerard (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @David Gerard: could you please explain what previous consensus you were referring to? Was that statement in error or was there such a consensus? Hobit (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AfD, nomination to redirect. While AfD generally shouldn’t be used for proposing redirection, in the case of a committed dispute over redirection, it should go to AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This was an appropriate DRV matter to the extent that DRV clarifies the scope of AfD. DRV should not resolve whether the page should be redirected. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sent the article to AfD. The rest of this stuff belongs at
    WP:AN. AfD resolves the status of articles with results that include "convert to redirect", this is a very common result, along with "merge" and "delete" and "keep". That is was AfD is for. Don't let the name fool you. Herostratus (talk) 10:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 January 2022

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Talkback/preload (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Second XfD: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_December_12#Template:Talkback/preload_page

Per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 December 30#Template:Translation/Preload, nominating user did not understand purpose of preload templates. It is used by User:AnomieBOT when adding talkback notices to talk pages (source: User:AnomieBOT/source/d/Talk.pm) – radar33 19:17, 3 January 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sulla's First Civil War (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore
)

Although this RfD was a bundled nomination, I don't think the closer was correct in his blanket dismissal of everything as 'no consensus'. For all but 2 redirects involved, there was a supermajority of 3 to 1 in favor of deletion, and the only dissenting argument was rebutted.

Avilich (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

@
Avilich (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Endorse and Do nothing. Follow advice at
    WP:RENOM, which includes advice to wait two months following “no consensus”, and to make a better nomination the next time. Discourage immediate relisting, because immediate relisting rarely comes with a better thought through nomination statement. Also, lack of participation implies that few people care, and loading up an XfD process with cases that people don’t care about is bad for process. I think that the question is of very low priority. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Endorse and do nothing per SmokeyJoe. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 January 2022

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mandar Agashe (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I came to find that this article was deleted because the sources gave trivial mentions as per the deletion discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mandar_Agashe). With just a quick google search of the subject and I was able to find news coverage of the subject’s business ([1][2][3][4]), music ([5][6][7][8]), and a bank scam the subject was involved in ([9][10][11][12]). Maybe these were not mentioned in the article that got deleted, and perhaps someone could add them? If it is not suitable for non-users to make suggestions like these, please promptly delete this post. This is just an avid wiki reader's suggestion. 2405:201:1006:E03A:5853:B349:68CE:798A (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://techgraph.co/inside/sarvatra-technologies-md-vice-mandar-agashe-on-rbi-monetary-policy/
  2. ^ https://www.business-standard.com/article/finance/we-help-banks-stay-on-the-grid-sarvatra-technologies-mandar-agashe-120050700085_1.html
  3. ^ https://www.smechannels.com/mandar-agashe-founder-md-and-vice-chairman-sarvatra-technologies/
  4. ^ https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/mandar-agashe-says-hell-consider-making-50-per-cent-of-his-team-work-remotely-post-lockdown/articleshow/74890632.cms
  5. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKa-5RO-a70
  6. ^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/pune-times/Mandar-to-release-single-in-Germany/articleshow/130147.cms
  7. ^ https://alumni.pict.edu/f/mandar-agashe-alumni-of-1990-batch-an-entrepreneur-music-director-and-singer-3788
  8. ^ https://starmarathi.in/asha-bhosale-sings-suresh-bhat-gajhals-for-her-next-album-82/
  9. ^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/Mandar-Agashes-bail-plea-rejected/articleshow/4236853.cms
  10. ^ https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/pune/fugitive-run-ends-for-economic-fraud-and-dreaded-gangster/
  11. ^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/suvarna-bank-fraud-director-in-police-custody-till-feb-11/articleshow/4077804.cms
  12. ^ https://punemirror.com/pune/cover-story/pay-back-time/cid5260744.htm
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 January 2022

  • Elephant Robotics – In this discussion, the community reviews a complex and difficult AfD involving issues we have wrestled with several times in the past. The community has previously questioned whether the general notability guideline should outweigh or overrule specific notability guidelines, and in this discussion the community once again fails to reach a consensus on that point. In his closing statement, Sandstein mentions the numerical superiority of the !votes to delete, and some but by no means all editors feel that this should not have been relevant. Some editors also feel that the IP editors' contributions should have been disregarded in the close, but not everyone shares this view; and of course if we did disregard IP editors at AfD, then we would see a proliferation of single-use accounts, to nobody's real benefit. Overall this discussion reduces to no consensus to overturn Sandstein's decision.
    The community also considers whether the article could be re-created in draft, and everyone who expresses an opinion on that agrees that it could be, so DRV permits re-creation in draft.—S Marshall T/C 13:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Elephant Robotics (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elephant Robotics, the AfD closer wrote, "After a thorough discussion of the available sources, people are divided about whether they are sufficient to establish notability. There are valid reasons for both points of view, such that I can't determine whose arguments are stronger. But in terms of numbers, we have 7 delete to 3 keep (including a "weak" keep"). This is above the two-thirds threshold that I use as a benchmark for rough consensus, ceteris paribus." Three of the comments were made before any sources were provided. Two of the "delete" comments were from IP addresses.

From
sock puppets, or accounts created solely for voting on the deletion discussion.

The IP addresses are indistinguishable from "accounts created solely for voting on the deletion discussion" as they have no other contributions. As Sandstein's close is heavily based on a vote count where two of the "delete" comments were from IP addresses, I asked Sandstein to change his close to "no consensus". Sandstein replied
, "No, because the IP addresses engaged in a reasonable (if brief) analysis of sources, similar to Deathlibrarian on the 'keep' side, such that I can't dismiss their opinions."

My view is that in a close heavily based on a vote count, Sandstein should have discounted the arguments of the IP addresses. Overturn to no consensus. Cunard (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The argument wasn't that the nominator or nomination was anti-business, but that the whole deletion process is. Statements by HighKing clearly expect more of organizations than the GNG, which is simply not policy, no matter whether an SNG wants to override the GNG or not. Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both the GNG and the SNG are guidelines, it is not possible for one to "override" the other. I'm happy to implement whatever is written in NCORP - if editors want it watered down or made less strict, go look for a consensus to change it. Trying to cast my participation and those who understand the criteria in NCORP as "anti-business" is an ad hominen attack without any foundation in fact and just looks like you're throwing your toys out of your pram because you don't like it. It isn't helpful and it isn't constructive.
      HighKing++ 15:33, 2 January 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Frank Morton (plant breeder) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Deleted by

Mysterious Whisper (talk) 17:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • information Note: temporarily undeleted for DRV. Daniel (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn A7 with prejudice. This wasn't even remotely borderline, although "On August 10, 2015, 'Outredgeous', a red romaine lettuce bred by Morton in the 1990s, became the first plant variety to be planted, harvested and eaten entirely in space, as a part of Expedition 44 to the International Space Station." (citations omitted from quote) should have been part of the lead. This wasn't tagged and then acted on, but unilaterally deleted, was it? Woohookitty, am I missing something, or do you owe the creator an apology? Jclemens (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note. I've ping'ed the deleting admin on their talk page, as no response to the prior inline ping was forthcoming and such a discussion really shouldn't close without input from the deleting admin. Jclemens (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I had already left two messages on their talk page about this. They have made a few edits since then. I object to keeping this discussion open any longer than strictly necessary, considering the strong unanimous support for overturning the deletion (I'm not a DRV regular, do they do SNOW closes here?). All the same, I would like to hear why they logged in on January 1st and deleted this article and the talk page, their only admin actions since last November and one of their few actions (less than ten) in the past twelve months.
    Mysterious Whisper (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong overturn – the article contains sources sufficient to establish notability, so it obviously doesn't meet A7. When the article is citing coverage in the BBC that claims "Morton is a pioneering breeder of lettuce", the credible claim of significance test is certainly met. I agree with Jclemens that this is not a close case, and I can't help but wonder how many valid articles have faced similar fates (and how many new editors have been driven away) over the years simply because their creators didn't know how to challenge a manifestly improper speedy deletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ^this. I checked
    Mysterious Whisper (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Mysterious Whisper cites Plant Breeding Reviews, and I have checked and FM does appear in there. That is a good suggestion of notability. Certainly not CSD A7 anyhow. Invasive Spices (talk) 1 January 2022 (UTC)
  • overturn and trout This isn't close to an A7. At worst it should have been sent to AfD. It's important to get A7s right. Anything that looks like it might pass WP:N isn't an A7. Full stop. Hobit (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn -
    A7 shouldn't be for well-sourced articles of more than one paragraph. Those aren't what A7 is for. A7 is primarily for stupid stuff. I haven't analyzed the sources for an AFD, but this isn't an AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Overturn There was a credible claim of significance. NW1223(Howl at me/My hunts) 17:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I think it's debatable whether the "plant in space" thing is a claim of significance for the breeder, sounds more like a claim of significance for the plant instead. Plus I wouldn't be surprised if there were many more people whose names we'll never hear involved in making that plant and its ancestors. But "Morton is a pioneering breeder of lettuce" is unambiguously a claim of significance for the breeder. "99 of the 104 lettuce varieties were bred by Frank Morton, for whom leafy greens, especially lettuce, is his major focus." is more debatable but a debatable claim of significance is a reason for declining an A7 deletion request, anyway. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Bad A7. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:21, 5 January 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Dates for Easter (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The content generated by the template was essential for List of dates for Easter and merely informative for Easter controversy (where its verbosity could have been limited by the use of parameters), but it was not substed upon deletion as had been suggested in the discussion. — Christoph Päper 16:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do you need the whole thing undeleted, or just undeleted so it can be subst'ed? Jclemens (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did the template use an algorithm to calculate dates or did it simply issue the predetermined text? Here is an archive of the article (see table top right). Thincat (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I remember correctly, I recently changed the template to be able to show an arbitrary range of Easter dates by calculating them. (The results are cached, of course.) In Easter controversy, it should only show a very limited set, as it used to, while in List of dates for Easter it does not harm to show all dates since 1583. — Christoph Päper 07:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist for a better discussion. If the template implements an algorithm then it could be of future use. If it simply outputs a table it could, I suppose, be subst'ed. However the nomination, as written (and therefore also the "per noms") was unreasonable. We do not delete templates just because they "mess up" a particular article. We remove the transclusion. Thincat (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per above. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:05, 6 January 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Viktor Fedotov (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article about Viktor Fedotov was created and then deleted following a deletion discussion. Then I recreated it rewriting it anew. I don't have access to the original deleted article but I took into account the issues raised at the deletion discussion. Then it was speedy-deleted again. The subject is clearly notable, there are multiple articles about him in media (for example in Forbes Russia)and continuing coverage of his issues in the UK (see this Guardian article which is less than one month old). Alaexis¿question? 10:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • information Note: temporarily undeleted for DRV (both versions of the article). Daniel (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know well how the DRV process works. Is the discussion supposed to take place here? Alaexis¿question? 19:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, discussion will take place here. Jclemens (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G4 as ineligible. Cullen328, did you mean to use another criterion, or are you misunderstanding what "substantially identical to the deleted version" means? Jclemens (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to AfD the articles are different enough that it's not a G4. I don't think it's an A10 anymore either, but that's more debatable. Given the low attendance at the original AfD and the improved nature of the article, I'd prefer it get sent to AfD for a discussion rather than an A10 at this point. Hobit (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G4 because the two versions of the article have scarcely any similarity other than topic. The matter is hugely party political so the result of any AFD will depend on who turns up to !vote. Coverage in UK newspapers is restricted to rather a few titles but when The Times also addresses the matter there are A10 and notability arguments to be had. The coverage in a deprecated newspaper will be discounted. Thincat (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G4 The two versions are not the same. NW1223(Howl at me/My hunts) 21:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2022_January&oldid=1062870469"