Mamata Kanojia – Decision endorsed. Regardless of the strength of the arguments, one !vote for deletion other than the nominator is only enough for soft deletion, which cannot be sustained in the face of legitimate opposition. WP:NPASR applies. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The closer did not explain their reasoning, but it would appear that they simply counted votes instead of discarding ones that do not comply with our notability guidelines. All of the Keep !votes are based on either the article meeting NCRIC (which isn't sufficient to establish notability) or the likelihood that SIGCOV sources exist, even though none have been found. This violates WP:SPORTCRIT #5 (which requires at least one SIGCOV source to actually be cited in the article) and WP:NRV which requires "objective, verifiable evidence" that sourcing exists. –dlthewave☎ 03:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete, per WP:LOCALCON. There is a broad consensus that sports biographies must include at least one example of significant coverage; a local consensus cannot overturn that requirement. Note that there was an effort to discuss this with the closer. BilledMammal (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC) Endorse. While this result was inappropriate per WP:LOCALCON it would not be appropriate to overturn per WP:NOTBURO now that StAnselm has provided evidence demonstrating notability. BilledMammal (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe AfDs are by definition a "community consensus"; so, I'm not sure WP:LOCALCON is applicable to them. The same pretty much applies to the two DRs listed below this one as well (but I'm not going to repeat the same post there). -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant line is Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. While AfD's are a community consensus, it is among a limited group of editors at one place and time, and cannot overrule policies or guidelines which have community consensus on a wider scale. BilledMammal (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was a bit slow to respond, but I pretty much agree with what Pawnkingthree and Hut 8.5 posted below about LOCALCON in the DR about "Subroto Das". -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: Then I have the same question for you as I had for Pawnkingthree; Can you explain that a little further? We have a policy saying that local consensus cannot override consensus on a wider scale, but you are saying these local consensuses are fine?. BilledMammal (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that it's possible to argue that every consensus is essentially a "local consensus" if you base your argument on simply that it involved a limited number of editors. So, I think it's better to make the distinction based on where the consensus was established, and I think that's what LOCALCON is trying to imply. I also think that overturning the consensus to delete runs the risk of be seen (perhaps unfairly) as a WP:SUPERVOTE by whichever admin decided to to do that. It might be reasonable to request that the discussion be relisted per item 3 of WP:CLOSECHALLENGE or even start another AFD per WP:RENOM (after a reasonable amount of time has passed), but there would probably still need to be more than the same two people !voting delete and the same core group of people !voting keep for the outcome to be any different. If there's been a change in the way the notability of these types of articles is now being assessed, then trying to implement such a change community wide asap is likely going to receive resistance until the change has had time to sink in and starts to be applied at the community level. Furthermore, nominating a bunch of similar articles for deletion for essentially the same reason in order to try and "enforce" such a change is likely going to be seen (perhaps unfairly) as WP:POINTY by some and lead to even more resistence. Perhaps it might take some time for whatever change was made to trickle down to the WikiProject and AfD level and maybe it's best to try and proceed a little more slowly until then. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: It isn't about the number of editors, it is about the level of the discussion. For example, a consensus at an article - even if it involves a formal discussion with broad participation like an RfC - is below a consensus on a policy page. The same is true of consensus at a noticeboard, and a consensus at AfD. WP:DETCON speaks to this; consensus isn't a vote, but is instead determined by the quality of arguments presented, assessed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.
The reason this needs to be true is then established by the rest of your comment; the broader community has decided that it disagrees with how the editors at AfD have been assessing notability and found a consensus to change the relevant guidelines. This change now needs to be reflected at AfD and it would be disruptive to allow a small group of editors who opposed that change to stop that happening. BilledMammal (talk) 06:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I participated in both of the deletion discussions for this article - the one started in May and the one from June. This year. Both of which were closed as keep. And now in July we're at deletion review? Blimey.
So, two AfD and now a DRV in a short space of time. Good luck dealing with this one. I note as well that there is a current ArbCom discussion going on about behaviour around deletion. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse while no consensus would also have been reasonable there wasn't a consensus for deletion, and I don't think it was a good idea to start a second AfD less than a month after it was kept at AfD. Hut 8.5 12:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One Delete !vote is usually sufficient for soft delete of a stub with no SIGCOV. –dlthewave☎ 12:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is, if nobody else commented. Not when there are six valid "keep" votes as well... BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if we closed this as Delete we'd be saying that seven people supporting keeping the article made it more likely to be deleted, which is just silly. Hut 8.5 16:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11: But are there six valid "keep" votes? If WP:LOCALCON applies to AfD, and if there is broad community consensus for WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, then none of them are.
Since WP:LOCALCON applies to formal discussions that involve a consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, it applies to AfD. Thus, since there is broad community consensus for WP:SPORTSCRIT #5 none of these keep votes are valid. BilledMammal (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the Keep !votes were all complete gibberish it still wouldn't be possible to close this AfD as Delete. Hut 8.5 07:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Even if the Keep !votes were all complete gibberish it still wouldn't be possible to close this AfD as Delete." - No, really no. WP:NOTDEMOCRACY is one of the longest-standing policies we have. WP:NOTAVOTEis a very long standing and high-acceptance explanation of it. If one person is talking sense and the rest are talking gibberish, then it is the job of the closer to go with the one talking sense. FOARP (talk) 08:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the justification I'm using at all. For an AfD to be closed as Delete there needs to be an active consensus in favour of deletion. If you nominate something for deletion and the only other participation is one person supporting deletion then the debate would be closed as no consensus or soft delete, meaning that the article could be restored if anyone objects to the deletion for any reason (or no reason). Here the AfD got one comment in favour of deletion apart from the nominator, so we're in a similar situation. Soft deletion is definitely not an option because lots of people opposed deletion. If we close this as Delete then we are basically saying that the seven people who lined up to oppose deletion made it possible to delete the article. After all if they'd kept their mouths shut then the debate would have been closed as soft delete and any of them could have got it restored just by asking. Consequently closing as Delete makes no sense. Hut 8.5 12:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One of the WP:NOQUORUM options, for when a nomination has received very few or no comments but appears controversial to the closing administrator, is closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal. This is an option that has been exercised in circumstances like these. As such, I believe such a result would be compliant with deletion guidelines.
In addition, the argument you have made is one against overturning to delete, not one against overturning to no consensus or relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't actually a NOQUORUM situation, the AfD had plenty of participation. Pointing to the close of another AfD is at best a very weak argument. Relisting is not appropriate here, it is mainly used in cases where the AfD did not get much participation (it did) or if there has been some change in circumstances during the course of the discussion (there wasn't). It certainly isn't appropriate for someone to relist an AfD just because they don't like the outcome and/or arguments. And I don't want to get in another argument about sports notability just to decide whether to close as Keep or No Consensus, since those have no practical difference. Hut 8.5 08:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it were closed as soft delete, any editor could request restoration for any reason, which one of the keep !voters undoubtedly would. AGoing to a DRV to get a soft delete that's going to get restored anyway seems like needless bureaucracy to me. And "any reason" means "any reason." It doesn't matter if you disagree with the reason. It would still be restored. An editor could request restoration of a soft delete because the tooth fairy told them to and it would still be restored. So closing as soft delete (either at AfD or DRV) is pointless when there are multiple people wishing to keep the article. Smartyllama (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Hut. It does also seem incredibly WP:POINTY and disruptive to keep re-nominating an article, and then going for a DRV too. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 13:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, that could not have been anything other than "keep." BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (Involved, I voted keep) Almost everyone argued to keep. The AfD followed one about a month ago that was closed WP:SNOW keep. Indeed it's not a vote, indeed minority arguments can win, but the consensus seems clearly as keep. CT55555 (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the AFD should have been speedy closed as a bad-faith re-nomination of an AFD kept with overwhelming consensus less than a month prior and no new deletion rationale, but that is beside the point. Like the first AFD, there was consensus to keep. Both the nom the sole "delete" vote cite WP:NSPORT, but their claims are successfully refuted by User:Lugnuts' vote (along with his/her argument in the first AFD). FrankAnchor 15:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where did Lugnuts "refute" the requirement that all sportsperson articles include a citation to secondary independent SIGCOV in RS? The second sentence in NSPORT is for asserting a claim of notability (to avoid speedy deletion), as is explained in the NSPORT guideline at FAQ5. JoelleJay (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The closer made a reasonable decision on closing the discussion with the views mentioned in the discussion. This seems like a personal vendetta here. Two deletion discussions and a deletion review from the same editor within a couple of months. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This seems to be another WP:POINTy renom from Dlthewave, who seems increasingly incapable of accepting any opinions which differ from their own. This renom seems to question the WP:AGF of the closer too. StickyWicket (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The appropriate conclusion from the closer after review of the AFD. At this point the gender of the third trout doesn't matter. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn local consensus cannot overturn the broader consensus that articles should not exist if there is no significant coverage of the subject in independent sources. (t · c) buidhe 23:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Policies and guidelines are subject to interpretation in each individual case, and applied to these cases by consensus. Nothing wrong with the closure. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How does one interpret differently the clear requirement for a SIGCOV source to be cited in the article? JoelleJay (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - AFD is not supposed to be a pure head-count (nor, incidentally, is DelRev supposed to be a pure repeat of AFD, which means it is not necessary to ping AFD participants). Per WP:CONLEVEL a local consensus at AFD can't overturn a higher-level consensus. In this case the "keep" faction were using a essay (WP:NCRIC, or WP:CRIN as it is now), whilst the "delete" votes were relying squarely on WP:NSPORT which is a very recent, higher-level guide decided through large-scale and exhaustive participation. Allowing a "Keep" result to stand in this case would render the entire process that WP:NSPORT pointless and be an example of exactly the kind of failure to respect policies/guidelines in assessing AFDs that is currently the subject of an ARBCOM case. FOARP (talk) 08:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Even if we completely discount all keep !votes (which we shouldn't), one delete !vote other than nominator is hardly a consensus. At most that gives us a soft delete and anyone could request its restoration anyway, which the keep !voters undoubtedly would. So there's really no point in doing that even if we were to completely discount every single keep !vote, which is nonsense. Smartyllama (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is the application of a purely numerical count that has no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines and very core policy says we should not apply (WP:NOTADEMOCRACY/WP:NOTAVOTE). What about the very large consensus in the WP:NSPORT discussion this effectively over-rules? FOARP (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One !vote besides nominator is not consensus. I don't care what else has happened elsewhere. You still need consensus at an AfD to delete an article, and even if we ignore every keep !vote entirely, we didn't have that here, at most we would have had a soft delete which could have been restored for any reason. If you really want to do a soft delete and then immediately restore it when one of the keep !voters inevitably requests it, fine. But that seems to violate WP:NOTBURO to me. Smartyllama (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. Consensus should be based on guideline-compliant !votes, and very much not on guideline-rejecting !votes. The relevant guideline is NSPORT, which, per a recent, extremely well-attended and strongly-supported RfC consensus, now requires at least one SIRS of SIGCOV be cited in the article. Per ROUGHCONSENSUS, suspension of guidelines should be "no more exceptional in deletion than in any other area"; because a keep outcome literally does suspend a guideline, !votes advocating for such should robustly demonstrate why suspension is in the best interest of the encyclopedia. However, most of the keep !votes in both AfDs instead argue she should be presumed notable based on NCRIC criteria (or for procedural reasons) rather than for IAR reasons. Since these appeals to NSPORT did not coincide with the source addition required by NSPORT, nor did those !voters even address that reason for deletion, it does not make sense to keep the article on the grounds of "meeting NSPORT" when it objectively, unambiguously does not. JoelleJay (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The close could be invalidated solely on the grounds that the closer did not bother justifying it, but in addition to that, there recently was a well-attended RfC which ruled that articles on sportspeople must have SIGCOV to establish notability. It's about time that administrators start enforcing it. A local consensus against that should be ignored. Avilich (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think the points made above by Avilich and JoelleJay are excellently argued. Let me further add that if AFD won’t enforce high-level consensus because of numerical counts of voters then we essentially allow WP:FORUMSHOPPING. The keep !voters made many of the same points they made in these AFDs at the NSPORTs RFC where they were dismissed, but because they all watch the sports bio/cricket delsort they can create a majority on a less well-trafficked page such as these AFD discussions. That shouldn’t mean that they get to overturn the NSPORTs RFC. FOARP (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There was no path for any closer to close this as delete, even with all keep votes discounted. The keep votes are not complete garbage either, they argued that Significant coverage is likely to exist, for example one voter noted e2a: There appear to be a lot of passing references (at least - I can't access full versions, but inaccessible to the keep voters due to not being available in an digitalized format. No one challenged the keep voters either, so to the closer eyes it would seem that the reasoning was accepted. JumpytooTalk 07:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jumpytoo, I think it's still important to consider that the same guideline the keep !voters invoked (which would provide the presumption of SIGCOV they're advocating) also requires that sportsperson articles have a source of SIGCOV cited in the article, independent of the requirement to eventually meet GNG. This criterion has to be met for the sport-specific guidelines to actually apply. If we're just going to ignore that and rule in favor of local majority opinions every time (also in violation of ROUGHCONSENSUS), then why have global community input on P&Gs at all? Why not just let every wikiproject design their own guidelines that can never be contested by outsiders? JoelleJay (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay: Even if that is true, if the subject already meets GNG (which does not require sources to be cited in the article, only that they exist) then it should be kept regardless of whether it meets the relevant SNG. You can't have it both ways - GNG doesn't only trump NSPORT when it's convenient for you. Smartyllama (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And how does she meet GNG?! Sources have to be demonstrated to count towards GNG, while any presumption of meeting GNG will be afforded by an SNG -- and the relevant one here requires a source of SIGCOV be cited in the article. Your argument makes no sense. JoelleJay (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has shown verifiable evidence that SIGCOV sources exist, as required by WP:NRV. –dlthewave☎ 18:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: FWIW, this particular player is also known as "Mamta Kanojia", and searching for that name did lead to a news article with significant coverage. StAnselm (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm this, both with the source StAnselm added, and with other sources I have been able to find searching for that name; while the result of this AfD was incompatible with policy, WP:NOTBURO applies and I don't think anyone would support overturning the result now that new evidence has been provided.
However, I think we should delay the closure of this discussion until the other two are ready to be closed, as to avoid bludgeoning I made some rebuttals here that also apply to the other sections and I would like the closer to consider those rebuttals in their assessment of consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Shabana Kausar – Decision endorsed. Regardless of the strength of the arguments, one !vote for deletion other than the nominator is only enough for soft deletion, which cannot be sustained in the face of legitimate opposition. WP:NPASR applies. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The closer did not explain their reasoning, but it would appear that they simply counted votes instead of discarding ones that do not comply with our notability guidelines. All of the Keep !votes are based on either the article meeting NCRIC (which isn't sufficient to establish notability) or the likelihood that SIGCOV sources exist, even though none have been found. This violates WP:SPORTCRIT #5 (which requires at least one SIGCOV source to actually be cited in the article) and WP:NRV which requires "objective, verifiable evidence" that sourcing exists. –dlthewave☎ 03:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete, per WP:LOCALCON. There is a broad consensus that sports biographies must include at least one example of significant coverage; a local consensus cannot overturn that requirement. Note that there were multiple efforts to discuss this with the closer. BilledMammal (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Policies and guidelines are interpreted and applied to individual cases by consensus, and the consensus here was to keep. Endorse. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse while no consensus would also have been reasonable there wasn't a consensus for deletion, and I don't think it was a good idea to start a second AfD less than a month after it was kept at AfD. Hut 8.5 12:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Hut. It does also seem incredibly WP:POINTY and disruptive to keep re-nominating an article, and then going for a DRV too. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 13:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, that could not have been anything other than "keep." Also, I find it a bit ridiculous (for all three of these discussions) how after the first AFD was closed as "keep," dlthewave then nominated it for AFD a second time, and when that did not go his way he brought it to DRV! BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The closer made a reasonable decision on closing the discussion with the views mentioned in the discussion. This seems like a personal vendetta here. Two deletion discussions and a deletion review from the same editor within a couple of months. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The close reflected the consensus. A female {{trout}} to the appellant. These salmonids, like other vertebrates, are capable of reproduction. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - AFD is not supposed to be a pure head-count (nor, incidentally, is DelRev supposed to be a pure repeat of AFD, which means it is not necessary to ping AFD participants). Per WP:CONLEVEL a local consensus at AFD can't overturn a higher-level consensus. In this case the "keep" faction were using a essay (WP:NCRIC, or WP:CRIN as it is now), whilst the "delete" votes were relying squarely on WP:NSPORT which is a very recent, higher-level guide decided through large-scale and exhaustive participation. Allowing a "Keep" result to stand in this case would render the entire process that WP:NSPORT pointless and be an example of exactly the kind of failure to respect policies/guidelines in assessing AFDs that is currently the subject of an ARBCOM case. FOARP (talk) 08:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse As I said or will soon say on the other two related DRVs, even if we completely discount all keep !votes (which we shouldn't), one delete !vote other than nominator equals a soft delete at best and it could be restored upon request for any reason. So one of the keep !voters would undoubtedly have requested restoration for the same reason they !voted keep and it would have been restored. "Any reason" means any reason, whether you agree with it or not. So whether their reason to restore the soft deleted article is correct or not is irrelevant. No way there was consensus to delete here, and a soft delete would have been pointless, so no reason to overturn this. Smartyllama (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. Per my argument at the Mamota Kanojia DRV. Just because the same bloc of editors who vehemently opposed the successful NSPORT2022 proposals and obstructed their implementation happens to have high participation at AfDs and DRVs (including this one) where they continue to make guideline-rejected/non-compliant !votes, doesn't mean global consensus can just be overturned. This is especially true when none of the keep !voters even address the overarching requirement for SIGCOV cited in the article that is literally stated unambiguously in the very guideline they invoke. JoelleJay (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The close could be invalidated solely on the grounds that the closer did not bother justifying it, but in addition to that, there recently was a well-attended RfC which ruled that articles on sportspeople must have SIGCOV to establish notability. It's about time that administrators start enforcing it. A local consensus against that should be ignored. Avilich (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There was no path for any closer to close this as delete, even with all keep votes discounted, a soft delete is the farthest you can go which would be immediately opposed. Keep votes also argued that Significant coverage is likely to exist and provided evidence why that this may be the case, one voter noted If foreign newspaper is writing about her then surely there would be some articles about her in local language. JumpytooTalk 07:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Subroto Das – Decision endorsed. Regardless of the strength of the arguments, one !vote for deletion other than the nominator is only enough for soft deletion, which cannot be sustained in the face of legitimate opposition. WP:NPASR applies. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The closer did not explain their reasoning, but it would appear that they simply counted votes instead of discarding ones that do not comply with our notability guidelines. All of the Keep !votes are based on either the article meeting NCRIC (which isn't sufficient to establish notability) or the likelihood that SIGCOV sources exist, even though none have been found. This violates WP:SPORTCRIT #5 (which requires at least one SIGCOV source to actually be cited in the article) and WP:NRV which requires "objective, verifiable evidence" that sourcing exists. –dlthewave☎ 03:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete, per WP:LOCALCON. There is a broad consensus that sports biographies must include at least one example of significant coverage; a local consensus cannot overturn that requirement. Note that there were multiple efforts to discuss this with the closer. BilledMammal (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as involved editor. This is all extremely disruptive. The article was nominated for deletion less than a month after a previous AfD had closed with a consensus to keep. So the arguments in that AfD should be weighed as well (and maybe they were). StAnselm (talk) 04:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse while no consensus would also have been reasonable there wasn't a consensus for deletion, and I don't think it was a good idea to start a second AfD less than a month after it was kept at AfD. Hut 8.5 12:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LOCALCON is about a WikiProject's guidelines not being able to override a wider community consensus. It's not really applicable to AfDs, all of which are "local consensus" by their very nature - the views of the participants of each one carry the day.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing else, this debate only had one person supporting deletion other than the nominator. That's not enough for a "delete" closure. Even if the debate had only consisted of the nomination and that one Delete !vote, and nobody had supported keeping the article at all, the debate still would not have been closed as Delete but as either No Consensus or soft delete. And of course those weren't the only comments, as far more people supported keeping it, so soft deletion is definitely not an option. There are situations in which the closing admin would have been justified in ignoring the participation and deleting the article anyway, but they relate to core policy problems such as BLP violations rather than sports notability guidelines.
Since there isn't any way the discussion can be closed as Delete, I don't see much point in going further, since Keep and No Consensus are the other closures and they have the same practical effect, and as I've said I don't think this AfD should have taken place in the first place. Hut 8.5 16:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hut 8.5: It appears you aren't presented an argument that the result was correct, just that there weren't sufficient votes for "delete". I disagree with that, on the basis of WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:DETCON, but I can understand where you are coming from. However, doesn't that mean to avoid WP:LOCALCON issues this closures should be overridden to no consensus, or the discussion reopened? BilledMammal (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to get into yet another argument about sports notability guidelines just in order to determine whether this AfD should be closed as Keep or No Consensus, as those have no practical difference. But if you insist, the argument that the subject's career means that sources are likely to exist and that these may not have been found due to the subject being from a non-English speaking country and being active in a pre-internet era does have some basis in WP:NEXIST, so I don't think it's fair to ignore those comments. Relisting this AfD would not be appropriate, as there was plenty of participation and there haven't been any changes late in the discussion. It isn't appropriate to relist an AfD just because you don't like the outcome and/or arguments. Hut 8.5 07:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You would be correct if WP:SPORTCRIT #5 did not exist but as it does sports biographies must have at least one example of WP:SIGCOV. If one example can be found then WP:NEXIST does allow for the article to be temporarily kept on the presumption that more can be found, but in the absence of that one example it does not. BilledMammal (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pawnkingthree: Can you explain that a little further? We have a policy saying that local consensus cannot override consensus on a wider scale, but you are saying these local consensuses are fine? BilledMammal (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Hut. It does also seem incredibly WP:POINTY and disruptive to keep re-nominating an article, and then going for a DRV too. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 13:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, good close. There was no consensus to delete. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the AFD should have been speedy closed as a bad-faith re-nomination of an AFD kept with overwhelming consensus less than a month prior and no new deletion rationale, but that is beside the point. Like the first AFD, there was consensus to keep. Both the nom the sole "delete" vote cite WP:NSPORT, but their claims are successfully refuted by User:Lugnuts' vote (along with his/her argument in the first AFD). FrankAnchor 15:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The closer made a reasonable decision on closing the discussion with the views mentioned in the discussion. This seems like a personal vendetta here. Two deletion discussions and a deletion review from the same editor within a couple of months. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The correct conclusion from the second AFD. A trout to the appellant. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon, on what basis do you endorse the outcome? You haven't addressed any of my points, and !votes that do not include a rationale are likely to be disregarded. –dlthewave☎ 21:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis that the closer correctly reviewed the results of the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think that it should be overturned on the basis that the closer incorrectly reviewed the results of the AFD, and I've provided P&G-based reasoning to support that. –dlthewave☎ 22:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Discussion presented strong, reasonable grounds for the existence of sourcing given the extent of play engaged. This was not refuted. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn, reasonable grounds for the existence of sources does not overrule the guideline requirement for a SIGCOV source to be cited in the article at all times. That requirement was the product of an extremely strong and well-attended consensus, and should not be suspended every time the same editors who opposed that consensus make guideline-noncompliant !votes at AfD and refuse to even acknowledge that reason for deletion. Why have guidelines or attempt global consensus at all if any and every local consensus can just overturn them without discussion? JoelleJay (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @JoelleJay. Thanks for the ping. I'm conscious of not engaging in relitigation here and would note point A1 in the FAQ of NSPORT: "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it" (emphasis added). I interpret this AfD on the basis of the arguments presented. Quoting myself: "strong, reasonable grounds" were presented for the existence of appropriate sourcing, this means a WP:LOCALCON issue does not arise. If the issue of "sufficient time" had been raised, the question of systemic bias in access to sources would need to be considered in elaborating what is "sufficient time" (also taking account of the very recent adoption of NSPORT). Kind regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn That FAQ applies to NSPORT's relationship with GNG (note that it specifies multiple RS); the requirement for at least one source of SIGCOV being cited in the article from inception is independent from the requirement to meet GNG "eventually". JoelleJay (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(The relevant guidance being Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article.) JoelleJay (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @JoelleJay - the GNG applies to *everything*; we can't apply conditions which set a threshold above or below it. If there had not been not "strong, reasonable grounds for the existence of sourcing" presented in this discussion, or if those "strong, reasonable grounds" had been effectively refuted, my view here would be different. I would emphasise that I believe we should studiously try to avoid a discussion *about* policy or guidelines, but rather focus on their application in this case. Kind regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd note that it is possible to set tighter restrictions on topic areas than the GNG; WP:NCORP is an example of this.
However, that isn't what is happening here; SPORTSCRIT requires that articles include at least one reference to a source with WP:SIGCOV; GNG requires multiple such sources.
What is happening here is that the community has decided to limit the ability to assume sources exist for sports biographies; in this topic editors are required to prove that at least one suitable source exists before they are permitted to assume the existence of others. This limitation represents a broad consensus of the community and cannot be rejected in local discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn, as BilledMammal noted, this isn't about the GNG, which requires multiple sources. This is about the requirement for at least one SIGCOV source being present in the article in order to make any of the presumptions of further SIGCOV accorded to athletes by sport-specific subguidelines. In order to even apply the "strong, reasonable grounds" for sourcing from meeting NCRIC criteria, the article must include a source of SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 04:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the original closure and yet more mounting evidence of Dlethewave's WP:DISRUPTIVE behaviour, whereby they cannot accept any opinions outside of theirs. StickyWicket (talk) 10:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - AFD is not supposed to be a pure head-count (nor, incidentally, is DelRev supposed to be a pure repeat of AFD, which means it is not necessary to ping AFD participants). Per WP:CONLEVEL a local consensus at AFD can't overturn a higher-level consensus. In this case the "keep" faction were using a essay (WP:NCRIC, or WP:CRIN as it is now), whilst the "delete" votes were relying squarely on WP:NSPORT which is a very recent, higher-level guide decided through large-scale and exhaustive participation. Allowing a "Keep" result to stand in this case would render the entire process that WP:NSPORT pointless and be an example of exactly the kind of failure to respect policies/guidelines in assessing AFDs that is currently the subject of an ARBCOM case. FOARP (talk) 08:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Even if we completely discount all keep !votes (which we shouldn't), one delete !vote other than the nominator equals a soft delete at best at which point one of the keep !voters would have surely requested restoration. And they can do so for any reason. The fact that some people disagree with that reason is irrelevant. So it would have been restored even if it were closed as soft delete. No way this could have been closed as consensus to delete. Smartyllama (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Per my argument at the Mamota Kanojia DRV. Just because the same bloc of editors who vehemently opposed the successful NSPORT2022 proposals and obstructed their implementation happens to have high participation at AfDs and DRVs (including this one) where they continue to make guideline-rejected/non-compliant !votes, doesn't mean global consensus can just be overturned. This is especially true when none of the keep !voters even address the overarching requirement for SIGCOV cited in the article that is literally stated unambiguously in the very guideline they invoke. JoelleJay (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The close could be invalidated solely on the grounds that the closer did not bother justifying it, but in addition to that, there recently was a well-attended RfC which ruled that articles on sportspeople must have SIGCOV to establish notability. It's about time that administrators start enforcing it. A local consensus against that should be ignored. Avilich (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse or NC overturn As like the other sports DRV's, no path for deletion is possible here, nom + 1 !vote isn't enough for anything other than a useless soft delete. Unlike the other AfD's though, no one showed evidence that Significant coverage is likely to exist, and the keep voters seemed to be closer towards WP:IAR appeals. Thus, the endorse is weaker, or an overturn to NC can also be considered. JumpytooTalk 07:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added a couple of references regarding his work as a selector - but as often happens, he was known by another name. Which is why we had the concept of presumed notability in the first place. StAnselm (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
