- Adam Thompson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
At first glance, this might appear an obvious keep. But it was a flawed decision for several reasons:
- 0% (that is not an exaggeration) of keep rationales attempted to explain how the article subject met the GNG, even when specifically invited to do so.
- Within minutes, it had been added to WP:FOOTY's list of discussions, as is routine for most football debates. [1] However, exposure among a partisan crowd did not stop there. The user decided that this was not sufficient, and that a personalized request for participation at WP:FOOTY was neccessary. [2] I accept that he had good faith intentions, namely to provide more clarity on whether or not the current guideline is sufficient. But this does not change the fact that an extremely distorted proportion of participating editors were members of a wikiproject with an unrepresentative view of the relationship between WP:NSPORTS and the WP:GNG.
- The administrator acted improperly by closing. Administrators should never use the tools in a way that either does, or appears, to be furthering their own POV. User:Mkativerata used a POV in the keep rationale that he had previously expressed in when attempting to amend this very guideline on this very point [3]. The change stood for eight minutes before being reverted [4], was not present during the !voting process on whether to promote NSPORTS to a guideline ([5]), and indeed the requirement in NSPORTS that articles meet the GNG exists to this very day, as can be seen here.
In summary, we have zero explanation of why the article passes the GNG. Conversely we have explanation of why the article does not meet the GNG, and why it needs to do so. We have users treating the process as a democratic vote, to the extent that they feel that they feel that footballers are above the GNG and that is the end of the matter. We have a closing admin that made a very questionable call in deciding to close the discussion.
AfD is decided on the weight of arguments. If you actually read them, the weight of arguments was clearly that the article does not pass the GNG, and given that NSPORTS mandates that stand-alone articles pass the GNG, it doesn't pass NSPORTS. Regardless of the (skewed) ratio of the votes, the article should have been deleted. Regards, —WFC— 09:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Re diff [4] at least get the diff correct and not misrepresent that it was "reverted". The correct diff is here with the edit summary accurately reflecting what the editor did (and I agree with what he/she did).[6] --Mkativerata (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll also quote again from WP:N: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below and is not excluded by WP:NOT. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in any of the subject-specific guidelines listed in the box on the right." --Mkativerata (talk) 09:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess that distinctino makes you entirely qualified to use the tools to push your POV then? In any case, the version that was promoted did not include your change, showing that there was not in fact consensus. —WFC— 10:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And one of those subject-specific criteria is "'In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline." It's not unambiguous in any way, shape or form. —WFC— 10:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok well your "unambiguous" view got resoundingly rejected at the AfD so lets see how it goes here. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it got resoundingly ignored by people with a direct interest in lowering the bar, and closed by an administrator that even now refuses to acknowledge that he should not have made the close. Instead of graciously accepting this point and standing down, you are continuing to push your POV. We all make mistakes. Me more than most. But your dogged refusal to accept any wrongdoing when it is right there in front of you shows everything that is wrong with giving admins scope to largely ignore our policies and guidelines, and instead do as they please. —WFC— 10:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and reclose. The closing admin is a bit too close to this for my liking. If the argument had been purely based on whether they meet NFOOTBALL I'd have probably said the closing admin was sufficiently independent, however a significant amount of the argument was based on the relationship between GNG and the athlete guidelines and this is something the closing admin has been involved in as shown by the diffs and therefore I don't think this admin should have closed. I don't think it's worth relisting as there had been enough discussion but I do think it's worth being re-closed by another admin, as although I think the same outcome is likely I don't think it's certain. Dpmuk (talk) 10:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Somewhat in response to Number 57's comment below I should probably have made it clear that I strongly suspect that Mkativerata hasn't been biased in his close, however, as I've stated here before, I think it's important that we are seen to act correctly and those diffs put some doubt on that. If it was clear to me that another admin would close it the same way I'd endorse but I believe this one falls in the admin discretion area so they may not. Dpmuk (talk) 11:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion This article has been through two AfDs in the last three weeks, both initiated by the same user, and neither of them have resulted in a consensus to delete, with a majority (5/8 and 9/11) noting that the article effectively passes WP:ATHLETE in both cases. I hardly think one edit to what was just an essay back in May makes Mkativerata biased here. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure - I probably would've !voted Weak Delete / Userfy if I had been around for these discussions as I'm not fan of keeping articles on players who have only made a single cup appearance, but that's a moot point and this is not AfD Round 3. There was a pretty clear consensus that the article should be kept due to the subject meeting WP:NSPORTS (especially in the second AfD) so I think the closure was correct, and I see no wrong-doing on the closing admin's part - he certainly didn't misuse any admin tools as there are no admin tools required for closing a discussion! Bettia (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse... I think. In the end this was much closer than I thought it would be, but given the numbers and the reasonably balanced strength of each side, it's either keep or no consensus, which in real terms have the same effect anyway. One edit five months ago to an essay that later became a guideline isn't a COI in my book. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse consensus is pretty clear. Hobit (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse own close. The AFD/AfD2/DRV nominator suffers a number of misconceptions here. The relevant misconception for the purposes of this DRV is that the GNG is a black letter law to which an administrator has to hold every single AfD argument, and in this case, discard 9 keep arguments. That plainly isn't the case. For a number of reasons. First, the GNG is a guideline; no more a guideline than, say, NSPORT or WP:POLITICIAN. Secondly, the GNG itself says it is subject to exceptions, so AfD participants can, by consensus decide something is notable despite failing the GNG, or isn't notable despite passing it. Third, WP:N, the central guideline on notability, says directly that subjects can be notable for passing the subject-specific guidelines even if they fail the GNG. That doesn't mean they will be notable; but that they can. The community very clearly decided that Thompson is notable. The community is free to decide that despite the GNG because it was armed with a subject-specific guideline that said he was notable. The community was also free to accept WFC's arguments that the GNG should prevail; but the community didn't. It's as simple as that. Regarding whether my choice to close this discussion was improper because of my past involvement in editing NSPORT, I don't think that it was. I made an edit that removed incorrect text that incorrectly stated GNG as a black letter law.[7] It was edited eight minutes later in a different way, the new text being completely acceptable because by using the words "generally expected" it didn't treat the GNG as a black letter law.[8] There was no dispute over either edit. But in any case, it is quite clear from my closing statement here that the close is based on the consensus at the AfD. If it had been 9-3 reasonable arguments the other way I would have certainly closed it as delete. --Mkativerata (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The issues of notability were explicitly addressed and consensus was that the subject was notable and that the article should be retained. Alansohn (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've noticed that the user who started this deletion review has set up a RfC on the issue at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Notability of association footballers. Calathan (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse keep per pretty solid consensus, and definitely well within discretion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - Firstly I don't think that this guy is notable, there is not significant coverage about him, I think that it harms the project to have pages on everyone who ever kicked a football or ever sung a song, WP is starting to look like a directory of sports players and singers and less and less like a serious encyclopaedia day by day. But getting back to this AfD as per Bettia, I would have !voted delete (perhaps not weak) but I cant fault the close it is clearly what the majority of participants wanted.Codf1977 (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The AfD was closed following a strong consensus to keep the article, and I don't see that the closer has acted inappropriately. Eldumpo (talk) 08:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the participants at the AfD for this article made rather clear arguments based on policy to keep the article and consensus for retention was clear. Alansohn (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems you've already endorsed above. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close but open RFC advertised at WP:CENT aimed at resolving the issue. I agree with much of what WFC has said, and it does appear that there is a sort of walled garden meaning a local consensus is overriding wider community consensus. However, AfD is not set up to deal with that sort of issue. What we need here is wider participation from people not involved in the debate as at the moment it is the same participants rehashing the same arguments. I would also encourage WFC to rephrase his arguments - what we have here is simply a disagreement between well meaning editors, and we would be well advised to keep discussion of motives out of it. Quantpole (talk) 11:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Though I have already stated my position above, I would like also to state that I also agree with Quantpole position, and urge WFC to start such a RFC. Codf1977 (talk) 11:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quantpole has hit the nail on the head here. I think there should be an(other) RFC on this topic, and that this is a good example of why. However, having had the benefit of a few days' worth of relative distance, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to start it. —WFC— 17:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, I'm talking about an RfC on local vs global consensus. —WFC— 18:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant, weak overturn and renominate with instructions to discuss in terms of WP:GNG. The question presented is whether local consensus at an AfD ("keep, has played in this or that league") should override a clear guideline (per WP:ATHLETE, articles still need to pass WP:GNG). I am of the opinion that a long-established guideline is more representative of overall community consensus, in cases (as here) where most "keep" opinions do not explain why one should not apply the guideline in this instance (which local consensus could in theory well do). But reasonable people may disagree about this approach, so, weak opinion. Sandstein 21:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
