- Ben Duscher (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
No reason for the deletion decision was given in the closure, and it seems to be based on either vote counting or the overarching WP:NSPORTS "needs to play at a fully pro level" guideline, rather than per the sport specific notability guideline. The article originator has attempted to contact the closing admin for clarification, but no response to his query has been made. The-Pope (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Even if the subject passes the notability guidelines this only leads to a presumption of notability – people may still think the subject should not have an article. In fact those !voting delete said he failed the guidelines so potentially there is a conflict of evidence with those !voting keep. However, I expect the closer considered this was not so much a question of fact as one of opinion and decided all views could be taken into account. Delete looks well within discretion to me. Possibly you could add something to Bendigo Football Club. Thincat (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's extremely unlikely that Black Kite has counted votes.—S Marshall T/C 23:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review . DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies I thought I had replied to the nominator on my talkpage, but clearly it didn't save or I did something stupid. No, I didn't count votes, although with five Delete including the nominator vs one Keep and a weak Keep there would have had to have been something seriously awry with the rationales for me to consider anything except delete here. I did have a look at the article, though, and whilst it appears to be impressively sourced, once you strip out the primary sources and match reports, there doesn't appear to be much to actively disprove the Delete voter's rationale that the player fails ATHLETE for Aussie Rules. Or certainly, not so much that I could consider closing this against consensus. Black Kite (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Unlike a lot of other team sports, Australian rules football has a condition in ATHLETE that allows for players in non-professional leagues to be considered notable (point 3) if they are "known, and has received significant coverage in reliable sources, for major individual achievements in a state football league." My weak keep was to indicate that being a club captain and club best and fairest is at the lower end of "major individual achievements", and I was hoping for that to be discussed or debated. Other than the nominator and LibStar who stated that the Pro league is needed (which is at odds with the Athlete guideline), I'm left to assume due to lack of clear explanation that the other delete votes thought similarly. To me, it seems that the consensus did not read the notability guidelines properly, or didn't understand them in relation to Australian rules football.
- For those who don't follow this sport, there is only one fully pro league, the AFL, with 18 teams. There is no promotion/relegation system. Below it are 6 state leagues (3 fairly high standard, 3 not so high) which are semi-pro and where the fully pro players play if not selected in the AFL side. Duscher captains one of these teams in a high standard league (Victorian Football League). The point 3 is widely accepted as covering winners of the league best player awards in these second level leagues. This being less than that, is why I voted weak keep, and is a bit of a test case. But no-one else has discussed point 3 of the guidelines at all, other than the article originator.
- Is AfD/DRV a place to refine the notability guidelines? I don't think so - it might be a place that prompts discussion of the guidelines, but until they are changed/overturned at WT:ATHLETE or WT:AFL, then AfD and DRV should follow the current guidelines.
- And as for the quality of the refs, yes, they could do with a prune, but refs 3, 5, 6, 24 & 29 are all significant coverage in independent reliable sources (especially 24, which isn't from a regional newspaper), which sounds like meeting WP:GNG to me.
- I'm not arguing that you closed against consensus, I'm arguing that consensus was against the notability guidelines. The-Pope (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Comment' Without regard to this issue, AfD is very much a place to interpret the notability guidelines. It is in fact the place, and to a considerable extent the guidelines are the guidelines to what is decided here. The community is not composed of a set of legislators who make the guidelines and we who judge according to them. The community is composed of a single group of people, all equal, who make the guidelines, decide how to interpret them in general, decide how to interpret them in a every particular case, and decide when to make exceptions to them. Some of the sports guidelines seem to be to some degree disputed, and whatever the community decides to do in a particular case with enough consensus is what it does.The role of an admin in the matter is only to decide what has sufficient consensus. If the admin wishes to urge the guideline be followed or not followed, the admin must participate in the discussion. Usually, of course, the community does decide to follow the guideline, and the presumption should be that it will do so. DGG ( talk ) 15:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse was a reasonable close. That said, this person has a strong case for meeting our notability guidelines as The-Pope points out. And further, no one really addressed the issues raised--all seem to either disagree or misunderstand the relevant notability guideline. Given this person meets WP:N on the face of it (plenty of sources, some of which are mainly about the subject), I'd urge an IAR relist. I strongly suspect that given an actual discussion rather than folks talking past each other, this probably would be kept. So basically relist on the basis of a fairly flawed discussion. Deletion may well be the right outcome, but I don't think that discussion really addressed the relevant points in any way. Hobit (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - Although not a professional footballer, Duscher appears to be notable enough for an article. Revolution1221 (talk · email · contributions) 20:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn While the arguments in the AfD centered around the specific SNG in question, long establish precedent is that SNGs cannot exclude on notability grounds an item that meets the GNG. Frankly, I'm getting a ton of dead links reviewing the referemces from work, but this one convinces me that there exists enough independent, RS coverage of this gentleman such that the SNG-based arguments, regardless of their numerical prevalence, should not have carried the day in the face of contrary votes that took a more holistic view of deletion policy. Jclemens-public (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - What scant coverage there is, such as the "Bendigo skipper to miss chance in AFL" one is just a routine sports blurb, nothing in-depth, nothing covering the subject in a significant or substantial way. Apart from that, no fault found in the closing admin's reading of the discussion consensus, so all in all yet another inappropriate "I disagree" DRV. Tarc (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering we've just had a very experienced admin and former arb say overturn, and many others agree that it was lineball, or at least deserves further discussion, I find your comments more inappropriate than the DRV. The-Pope (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it is rather fortunate that your opinion doesn't concern me all that much, and that when administrators weigh in on matters such as this, their opinions carry no more or less weigh than that of my own, or yours for that matter. Tarc (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tarc has identified the real issue. In sports a lot of coverage can be written off as "routine". I tend to argue that the same could be said of coverage of the president of the US ("all presidents get coverage like that, it's just routine"). But what is routine and what isn't is a matter of opinion. I'm urging a relist because there wasn't actually a discussion on that issue--it was a discussion about the SNG rather than WP:N. I suspect Tarc's view on routine coverage has a good chance to carry the day, but I think it is a discussion we should have. Hobit (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reach for your calendars, folks, you may wish to mark the date. I actually agree with Tarc. Or at least, with his first sentence. Given that the closer himself has posted that he would not be averse to a relisting, it's hard for me to envisage any other outcome to this DRV, but my view on this should be read as weak endorse.—S Marshall T/C 07:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm probably with S Marshall on this one as I can see us allowing someone to recreate this in 3-6 months time on the basis of arguments made, so what's the point? DRV is not AfD: Round 2 and keepers should have made their case with more gusto at AfD, but... Anyway, in the meantime, I've created WP:NAFL as a redirect to the section of WP:ATHLETE for AFL just to make all of these things a bit easier. Stalwart111 22:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Endorse in that the sources provided are primarily local newspapers rather than papers of record. Regrettably, this was not covered in the discussion. Nonetheless, given the comments that they had to work with, I think that Black Kite made a reasonable close. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Overturn: many of the 'endorse' comments here are still not addressing point three of the AFL notabilty criteria ("known, and has received significant coverage in reliable sources, for major individual achievements in a state football league" ). In this case the main arguments for the player meeting point three of these criteria are 1) his being captain of two VFL clubs, 2) won VFL best and fairest club medal 3) selected in VFL representative teams and 4) articles about him in papers that meet criteria which 5) include the opinion that he is amongst the best players in the VFL. These points concerning criteria 3 were not addressed in the original delete and need to be addressed now unless the criteria are to be ignored or changed; and, if so, a justification for that should be given.NimbusWeb (talk) 10:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC) An article from a reliable source newspaper on this player winning the Carter medal VFL club best player award can be found here: http://www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au/story/719111/duscher-wins-bendigo-bombers-club-champion-award/ NimbusWeb (talk) 11:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that you're right in that these things should have been discussed in the original deletion discussion. They weren't, but that's not the fault of the closer. It's not his role to research things never raised by the "keep" crowd and then super-vote the AfD closed against consensus. The "keep" crowd had a good argument (the one that has since been articulated here) but didn't make it at AfD. The closing admin can only go on what he has in front of him - in this case, a fairly clear consensus. DRV is not supposed to be AfD, round 2, where those who suddenly remember something or didn't see the AfD in time get to have a second crack. However, in this case, the closer has said he wouldn't be opposed to it being relisted. I imagine you'll get a chance to make your argument again and the above is a great start. I suspect we'll get a different result if it does indeed get relisted. Stalwart111 04:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
