- Krister Isaksen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
A footballer deleted for failing two guidelines, GNG and NFOOTBALL. The second is depecrated and now irrelevant, and regarding the first one, there was little participation and no WP:BEFORE was performed whatsoever. An actual search yields lots of GNG.
Above all, Isaksen is remembered for scoring a crucial goal that altered the relegation battle in the WP:SUSTAINED. Furthermore, there are other key moments in his career, such as scoring a goal in a cup semi-final that sent his club to the cup final. There is also significant coverage in newspapers from the places he grew up, Øst-Finnmark and KongsbergOf course, this should be restored to draft space and worked on there. Geschichte (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse original close but allow recreation. Firstly, this is a flawed appeal, as the appellant skipped step #2 of WP:DELREVD - notifying the AfD closer. Secondly, whether this footballer is "remembered for scoring a crucial goal" or not is immaterial. NFOOTBALL was the SNG in force at the time of this AfD. NSPORTS2022 was only codified the following year. I do note, however, that one of the three participants in that AfD - Rondolinda - was
WP:REFUND would be the right venue for this request. Owen× ☎ 10:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [reply
- Restore to draftspace per request. Let's not let bureaucracy get in the way of improving the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Encourage draftification, and follow advice at
WP:THREE on establishing that the subject is notable. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [reply
- Endorse but restore to draft, this is an old AfD and current standards do not mean a prior one was wrong. Was your request for the draft declined? Unclear why we're here. Star Mississippi 13:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore to draftspace. The close was correct based on information known at the time. However, with delete voter Rondolinda sanctioned for rush-copy-and-pasting votes, their vote can not be taken seriously and therefore can retroactively be removed. This is no longer a
WP:QUORUM and recreation must be allowed based on any good-faith request (including this DRV). Restoring to draftspace will allow Geschichte or any other interested user the time to incorporate appropriate sources into the draft version before a return to mainspace. Frank Anchor 13:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [reply
- Endorse and Restore draft as per discussion here. I think (but don't know) that the answer to ]
- Restore draft I can't see the current version of the page, but if it doesn't pass ]
temporarily undeleted so you and others can view. Cheers, Daniel ( talk) 19:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [reply- Thanks! I think we can move that straight back into mainspace, to be honest, even if I'd like to see an additional accessible source to make sure it doesn't get deleted again. SportingFlyer T·C 19:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse but restore to draft, agree with the above comment that we should not let bureaucracy stand in the way of improving the encyclopedia, but I'm also concerned that this still won't be enough. Aside from the fact that it is a shame sources are not being presented here to show
WP:SIGCOV , I am concerned that:
- the crucial goal is a case of
WP:BLP1E regardless of whether people are still talking about it.
- other events such as him scoring a goal here or there will be passing mentions and we need to be careful of
WP:SYNTH by taking a lot of small mentions as being wider significant coverage
- other mentions may well be
too local , or just routine transfer talk.
- although not essential, it is disappointing that no online sources are provided for this player. This makes coverage difficult to assess, so I would like to see that if possible
Overall, if this is recreated, I would like this to go through a proper articles for creation process to get more independent eyes on the depth of coverage, especially given that he is now retired. For example, if this important goal is still being discussed, to justify an article on the scorer we would not only neede to see evidence of continued discussion, but that the discussion is in depth, i.e. part of a wider reflection on his career or something like that where he is the main subject, not his club or the match or that season. Fenix down ( talk) 09:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [reply- Most AfC reviewers wouldn't put it through the rigourous process you're suggesting, though. If I saw it at AfC and it hadn't already been sent to AfD I'd probably pass it as "likely to pass an AfD." SportingFlyer T·C 06:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|
