Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 May 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2017 May 3
2017 May 5 >

4 May 2017

[edit]
  • Magdalena Zamolska – No consensus, "delete" closure maintained by default. Opinions are roughly evenly divided between endorsing and overturning the closure. The point of contention in the similarly divided AfD and here is whether a person is notable if they meet the subject-specific guideline WP:NSPORT but not the general WP:GNG. The closer determined through interpretation of both guidelines that the GNG takes precedence. In this DRV, there is no consensus about whether this was a correct weighing of arguments in the light of applicable policies and guidelines, or a "supervote" (i.e., a mere personal preference of the closer and not a correct application of policies and guidelines). As DRV closer, I can't determine by fiat who is right in this controversial matter. The AFD closure is therefore maintained by default for lack of consensus to overturn it. –  Sandstein  09:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Magdalena Zamolska (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There was clear consensus to keep page, or at least close as "no consensus" by virtue of a 10-6 vote in favor of keeping, which cannot plausibly be interpreted as consensus to delete. Additionally, the subject clearly meets WP:NCYC and people saying it should be deleted in spite of that boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Closure was clearly a supervote, as there was no way to interpret consensus the way it was. Smartyllama (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Overturn- completely agree with Smartyllama, seems like an illogical result given the discussion that was generated XyZAn (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be overturn, then, XyZAn? Smartyllama (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, my bad Smartyllama,! XyZAn (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist; obviously I can't see the article anymore to judge its sourcing myself, but the close does very much read like a supervote. I think, given this and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pawel Brylowski, there needs to be a discussion about the SNG (WP:NCYC) and sources used in cycling articles, since that's very much at the root of these AfDs. ansh666 23:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. It's quite a complicated issue. My initial thought was "This indicates that WP:GNG is being taken as a policy which must be followed". That is what the closer's comment says, after all. But on further consideration, that's not it. What's in play is that WP:NCYC specifically is being deprecated. And this could be and probably is functional. AFAIK WP:NCYC was written by some cycling enthusiasts and pushed through in some low-attendance discussions with a lot of cycling enthusiasts participating. And the result is the existence of articles, like this one, that after all are kind of ridiculous, that are nothing but a bare list of statistics from what may be iffy sources and where nothing is known or said about the subject beyond a listing of race times. And why need we be beholden to that. We cannot be required to host bad articles by a small coterie of editors.
We had a similar situation some years back where WP:PORNBIO was pushed through with ridiculously lax requirements, resulting in articles about people who appeared in movies but without speaking parts and whose real names weren't even known (WP:PORNBIO has since been reformed). And people attended the AfD and argued "meets WP:PORNBIO", which was true. And they were ignored and the articles deleted anyway because who cares what a few enthusiasts have managed to get "enacted"? And this was proper IMO.
I submit that this is the situation here. In in a situations like that, the closer is justified in standing on WP:GNG. It's not a vote, and the suspicion is that too many of the 10 keep votes were acting as cycling enthusiasts rather than strictly as encyclopediasts. The closer was justified in ignoring what may be an overly broad special notability standard. And cycling enthusiasts are advised to reform the rule so it covers articles that are actually going to be kept. Herostratus (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- AFD is not a vote(as the prev. !voter seems to imply), and most of the "Keep" opinions overlooked the fact that WP:NSPORTS still requires and is essentially dependent on WP:GNG. Herostratus also puts the reason behind discounting such !votes beautifully.Winged Blades Godric 06:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I think this closure is a stretch too far. It is perfectly reasonable for someone to argue that an article should be kept because the subject meets some SNG, even if that person doesn't have evidence to hand that the subject also meets the GNG. WP:N explicitly says you can demonstrate notability this way. Arguments along these lines should be taken into consideration and not discarded or given reduced weight. (It is also reasonable for AfD participants to conclude that an article should be deleted in these circumstances.) It is true, as the closer pointed out, that SNGs point to circumstances when subjects are likely to meet the GNG, but it doesn't follow from this that the SNGs are meaningless and you have to show evidence of passing the GNG when challenged. AfD participants have discretion with these issues and I don't think it was a good idea to force a decision on them. Hut 8.5 06:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse with no prejudice to relisting (I was the AFD's original nominator). User:Herostratus makes a very valid point to which I have little to add, except stress once again what User:Lankiveil that NCYC explicitly says itself it cannot overrule GNG, a fact that a number of people seem to ignore on purpose. I can only apploud the closer for ignoring the majority, and considering the quality of the arguments - not easy, given some pressure they have already received from the vocal sports-fan minority. On the final note, editors interested in improving NCYC and making it more like a proper encyclopedic citeria then the current sports-fan-written everything-goes one, are welcome to participate at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cycling#Tightening_up_of_WP:NCYC. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Michig and Hut 8.5. This is essentially a bad-faith super-vote. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would point out that Wikipedia:Notability itself does say, in the lede (emphasis added): "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1) It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right..." which WP:NSPORTS is one of the guidelines listed in the box on the right. So NPROF and WP:NMUSIC and so forth, and the many other sub-guidelines of WP:NSPORTS such as WP:BASEBALL/N do offer some protection against robotic application of WP:GNG IMO, and I would caution against WP:GNG being applied as a policy that must be followed. But then WP:GNG it itself just a guideline, and all this allows the closer some wiggle room, and since just WP:NCYC appears to be a bit loose it's valid for the closer to deprecate it somewhat. If he applied his same "compelled to follow GNG" point to WP:NPROF or even WP:BASEBALL/N I would not feel as sanguine. But as thinking people we're allowed to take all these factors in consideration. Herostratus (talk) 07:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also I see this discussion has been pinged at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling, which, fine, but its not a vote. Lets approach this as Wikipedians and not cycling enthusiasts. Herostratus (talk) 08:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The closing admin has misdirected himself. Meeting GNG is sufficient but not necessary to have an article; there are several other ways including subject specific notability guidelines. In the presence of no consensus to delete, the closure seems to me to have been in error. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Per WP:WHYN: "Editors apply notability standards to all subjects to determine whether the English language Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article on that subject. The primary purpose of these standards is to ensure that editors create articles that comply with major content policies. We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." Hut's argument would make a "presumption" not a presumption at all but an iron rule that we have to have an article, explicitly based on no actual evidence, but rather based on mere assertion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that nobody can point to significant coverage in reliable sources during an AfD does not necessarily mean that the subject does not meet the GNG. It might simply be that there are sources which haven't been found yet - the GNG depends on the state of the topic and not the article. When a typical AfD participant attempts to find sources for something it's likely to consist of a few minutes spent Googling the subject in English and reading some of what comes up. This is going to miss potential sources for many topics. (One contributor to this AfD cited a printed source in Polish, I doubt anyone else tried to find such a thing.)
      If the subject meets some SNG then yes that can be taken as a presumption that a comprehensive search would find sources meeting the GNG, and that can be used as evidence of notability. An AfD is also entitled to come to the opposite conclusion. The obvious example would be something like a recent tech startup, where any potential sources are almost certainly online. The closer of this AfD is the one creating the "iron rule", by saying that the AfD has no discretion in this matter and that as soon as someone brings up the GNG then the SNG (or at least this SNG) is worthless.
      And no, determinations of notability based on SNGs aren't assertions with no evidence. SNGs are created based on evidence and experience of community members from deletion discussions as to which topics are likely to have sufficient coverage to confer notability. Nor can you just assert that the subject meets an SNG, at least not without coming up with reliable sources to back up that assertion. Hut 8.5 19:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. because this discussion had extensive research of sources including by a Polish writer, who nominated it for deletion, the closer most certainly did not say just because someone raised the GNG. No sources researched were found or presented to show that we can write actual biography article -- they are all, including that book, just routine sports statistics of all participants in an event, not about her life. And this person competed several years ago plenty of time to generate and find GNG sources. You have created an iron rule of keep based on routine sports statistics, and you have construed it as no "presumption" at all, because such a presumption has to have a way to fail or it is an iron rule to keep and V requires the burden and the onus be on those seeking to include content. No amount of Original Research that says "I don't know, maybe" saves content on Wikipedia -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's pointless to wave your hands and say there might be sources out there somewhere, especially when others have looked and found nothing. Reyk YO! 23:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep consensus was that he met the SNG and that that is enough for keeping the article. And contra Alan's argument above, we don't have an iron rule that we have to have an article. Rather that we can have an article if consensus supports it. Which it did in this case. Hobit (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you have stated an iron rule. Your argument is that consensus is majority vote and that is contra Consensus, and per N and V, merely asserting there maybe sources, without proof cannot suffice to make an article nor any content. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you claiming an "iron rule" that an article which meets the SNG but not the GNG cannot be kept no matter the consensus of the discussion? My reading allows for consensus to matter, yours seems to want a rule independent of consensus. Which seems like more of an fixed rule? Hobit (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The position your argument in reality champions was stated several times in the discussion and has been re-stated, here: 'Wikipedian's can't in good faith delete, nor even nominate, this article' - and that is precisely an iron rule to keep. Whereas, the BURDEN and ONUS of anyone wanting content in the pedia is produce the sources, and here to do so per N (including WHYN). The 'presumption' or 'likelihood' of GNG has to be able to fail or be supported by the showing of actual research, or it is not a presumption at all, but an iron rule. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm stating what is standard around here: WP:IAR. Other than key policies (WP:BLP, copyright law, etc.) local consensus can overcome guidelines. Local consensus was that the SNG applied and was enough to keep the article. Hobit (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hobit: "he met the SNG and that that is enough for keeping the article". How do you square it with the SNG itself saying "If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline? No, the subject must still eventually meet the general notability guideline."? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: Yes, WP:N says either GNG or SNG(not that it is commonly practised....). However, the result was still correct, because WP:NSPORTS, the relevant SNG, states that the WP:GNG must be still met. Thus, the blind referral to WP:NSPORTS was a faulty argument, and had to be discounted. And if you discount the WP:NSPORTS arguments, then you have nothing left for "keep". There was not one good argument against the assertion that WP:GNG was not met, but there were backed up claims that WP:GNG was likely NOT met. A XFD is WP:NOTAVOTE, and if one side fails to respond properly to valid arguments based on policies and guidelines, and has faulty arguments (like go to WP:RSN when the reliability of a source is questioned based on reasonable evidence, or the WP:NSPORTS fallacy mentioned above) then the first glance result is not the end result, because the weak side loses many or all !votes as invalid votes. That is what happened here.Burning Pillar (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is circular reasoning: if GNG says SNG, and SNG says SNG+GNG, then the SNG is trying to usurp the GNG's position by mandating it be followed. To try and simplify it, an SNG cannot both be an SNG and require GNG compliance, because WP:N itself does not. I don't fault the editors who are looking at the text of the SNG as it currently stands, but pointing out that SNGs are delegated the authority to pronounce things notable aside from the GNG, and as such if they require GNG compliance, they are nullified: the GNG covers notability in that case regardless. Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Like WP:NSPORT itself - correctly cited by Scottywong in his closing rationale - says, articles that meet NSPORT must also meet GNG; and not only did no one seriously make the case that the article did in fact meet GNG, but many of the keep voters seemed to treat meeting GNG as optional, which undermined their arguments. Any !vote that appeals to NSPORT but views meeting GNG as optional is self-refuting, since NSPORT itself notes that meeting GNG is not optional. Sideways713 (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This DRV nomination starts off by talking about a a 10-6 vote . Any discussion which begins with the assumption that this is a vote is already off on the wrong track. Appeals to WP:NCYC only get you so far. It's a guideline, which means it's nothing more than a place to start a discussion. Comments like Passes WP:NCYC and that's enough don't fly. As far as I can tell, only a very few people contributed to WP:NCYC (sorted by edit count):
7 User:Severo
3 User:Lugnuts
2 User:Hydronium_Hydroxide
1 User:XyZAn
1 User:Sander.v.Ginkel
1 User:Mkativerata
1 User:Fram
1 User:Buzzards-Watch_Me_Work

and most of the single-edit contributors are boilerplate maintenance. That few contributors can't set inviolable policy for the entire encyclopedia. All of these notability guidelines include the word presumed, which means, Suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability.. That's good enough to create an article in the first place, and good enough to get you past WP:CSD, but once you get into a specific AfD, that presumption is being challenged, and you need to be able to back it up with real sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge per SmokeyJoe below also sounds like a good option, but unclear what's the right target. Perhaps Polish National Road Race Championships, but that's not entirely satisfying because there's other plausible targets too. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I dislike NSPORTS and think it is way too inclusive, but it does still exist and passing a SNG is as valid a reason to keep as GNG. SNG's are a way for AfD participants to assess one of the other parts of WP:N that is often forgotten: WP:NPOSSIBLE. The subject notability guidelines are simply practical ways for us to assess if a subject is likely to pass GNG, and if they pass the subject guideline, we generally assume that they pass the GNG. This could have closed no consensus or keep, but delete is a huge stretch based on current policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn GNG or SNG can each satisfy notability. The above DRV commentators, specifically Lankiveil, Reyk, and Godric, ignore the fact that NSPORT says GNG or a sport-specific SNG, which NCYC clearly is, regardless if some people like it or not. The problem with the approach taken by those who don't like the SNGs is that it attacks what they perceive to be a 'problem' in a way that perverts consensus: supervote, then enough 'endorse' !votes, even those clearly based on a direct misreading of policy, such that the poor close is endorsed. Better approach is to start an RfC directly, if desired. Jclemens (talk) 04:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me quote to you from NSPORTS: "In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline". Therefore, the hypothetical case where this met the sports SNG but not the GNG is not met; she fails NSPORTS as well. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
      • Yup, bingo. The SNGs, at best, provide a rebuttable presumption that the GNG is met. But they don't guarantee inclusion when it's actually been rebutted. Quite the reverse, in fact. Reyk YO! 06:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lankiveil, allow me to quote WP:NSPORTS right back at you: "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Note that this bolded in the original. The most charitable way to put this is that WP:NSPORTS is internally inconsistent. Jclemens (talk) 04:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • The FAQ has a link to the original discussion enacting the sports-specific guideline, where it was made clear that it does not replace the general notability guideline. This has been reaffirmed in multiple discussions since then; links to some of them are also in the FAQ. The second sentence in the current guidelines is an unfortunate oversimplification for those who like one-sentence, unnuanced guidance. Thus the criteria in the guideline have always been in the context of establishing a presumption of the existence of appropriate sources; they were never crafted to be a definitive standard for having an article in English Wikipedia. To use them that way subverts the broad consensus that approved the guideline. isaacl (talk) 04:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think your usage of 'always' is inadvisable. The GNG vs. SNG relationship has evolved on Wikipedia substantially; I remember when there was a substantial minority who thought that BOTH the GNG and the relevant SNG needed to be fulfilled. Those who arrived on Wikipedia recently will not have read NSPORTS through the lens of that historical background. Jclemens (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist I'd have relisted for further discussion on the possibility of a merge. With strong diametrically opposing !votes, and the call coming down to the precise wording of a Wikipedia:Notability subguideline, it is clearly a failing that not a single participant wrote the word "merge" in support, opposition or possibility, it simply wasn't considered, despite being mandated by WP:BEFORE. I am not saying it should be merged somewhere, but the subject's name is mentioned in multiple other articles, and there is a claim to notability with respect to representing a particular country in a particular sport, there sort of thing that is usually merge-able. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not quite the case, there was a suggestion mentioned during the RfD to put the sports statistics (which is all there is) of this person in another article, but you say they are already there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alanscottwalker, can you help me find this? It sounds like you are saying the information is already elsewhere, which means a redirect is in order. RfD? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Help you find what? During the RfD it was said that the persons sports statistics may possibly go to a list article or in article list on the event. And I thought you said, she is already so listed (thus, there would be nothing more to merge). It does not seem actually helpful to redirect the name. The search function finds the name, regardless. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alanscottwalker, help me find what you are talking about in your answer to me. What RfD? Did you mean the AfD? I have read of your comments and you wrote of neither redirects nor RfD. You !votes are definitely in keeping with a "merge and redirect", or "redirect" if the information is already there, but the discussion failed to even consider which article would be the best target. I said the woman's name "Magdalena Zamolska" has hits in Wikipedia mainspace, but none appear to the obvious target, and addressing the question of a merge and redirect is a BEFORE onus on the nominator. The closer was wrong to close because this remained undone. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote: "Some of the person's statistics info might go to an appropriate list article, per ONEEVENT and LIST, or to a list-in-an-article on notable cycling events.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)" That goes directly to my point. While this remains possible, the simple "delete" close decision is inappropriate. In consensus decision making, the "Keep"ers and "Delete"rs need to find common ground and compromise. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes AfD. Is that your only question? I don't think there is a best target, where the info is already in the other lists, there is nothing to merge. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On my search for all information on this cyclist, I find there is no suitable article. She is known for a few cycling competitions, but articles covering these competitions don't list competitors, let alone non-winners. Better to let any attempt to find this cyclist invoke the interneal Wikipedia search engine. I remain concerns that a lot of similar articles exist. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Although the discussion of a possible redirect target was missing, to the best of my research, there is no acceptable redirect target. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but I agree with Jclemens - we probably need an RfC here to codify whether an SNG can override GNG; my reading is that it can't, or shouldn't. This is a perfect example where the article as it stood didn't pass GNG (not to say it can't - I suspect there may well be a number of Polish sources out there) but did pass the SNG. There is also a huge disparity in the criteria needed to pass the SNGs for different sports. It really does need to be cleared up. Black Kite (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regardless of whether or not subject-specific notability guidelines in general can override the general notability guideline, the sports-specific guidelines have explicitly chosen not to do so, by consensus agreement when they were created, with multiple reaffirments since. isaacl (talk) 06:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TonyBallioni, Stifle, and Hut 8.5: Pardon me for pinging, but you have made arguments here that Zamolska meets the SNG and thus the article can be kept. I wonder how you square that with the portion of WP:NSPORTS (of which WP:NCYC is a part) that states that "standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline"? Given this, I fail to see how Zamolska can possibly meet the SNG. Do you feel that !votes in AFD discussions that are based on unambiguously inapplicable arguments should still have been considered during the close? Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    • No worry on the ping. SNGs are quick ways for participants in an AfD to assess whether or not a subject is likely to pass the GNG. Participants in an AfD can reject that presumption, but others can argue it in good faith, as was done here. Discounting those arguments to the point of deletion for this discussion was not with consensus, in my opinion. I think a no consensus close would have been fine, but deletion stretches it a bit far in this case. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm certainly not alleging that it wasn't done "in good faith", but rather that those making the argument were unaware or mistaken in the belief that it was possible to pass one of the sports guidelines without also simultaneously passing the GNG. I can certainly respect if we're going for an IAR interpretation here, but those making arguments based on policy or guidelines need to actually argue from the correct versions of those policies or guidelines. Otherwise we might as well replace AFD with a straight up-and-down vote. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
        • That point was brought up in the AfD, and participants continued to !vote keep after it was raised, which to me suggests that they were aware of the argument there and rejected it. One even brought up the fact that it was likely that additional sourcing existed in Polish, an argument that is in line with WP:N and are what the SNGs are supposed to help us assess. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Of course, it is utterly futile to assert that sources might maybe possibly exist. Especially when others have looked and found nothing. The closing admin did right to give such non-arguments little weight. Reyk YO! 01:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Then we should get rid of the SNGs and update WP:N to make it clear that sources must be present in the article, but as of now, those arguments are rooted in our guidelines. People at the AfD appealed to them, and others rejected them. That's no consensus, not delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • WP:N already does require that sources exist. It's right there in the second sentence. If keep voters are routinely appealing to WP:N without having read it first, that's even more reason to give such votes less weight. Reyk YO! 02:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • Quoting from WP:NEXIST, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive. And that's exactly what's going on here. There was an article created based on the SNG's presumption. That's fine. But, now, that presumption is being challenged. And the response to that challenge has got to be to produce some actual sources. If you can't produce the sources, then the presumption no longer holds. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but the decision as to whether the arguments based on the possibilities of sourcing and the implication from SNGs are persuasive is to be determined by the participants of the AfD. They are the ones who get to decide whether or not the policy-based arguments are persuasive in a particular case. They did not come to a consensus either way on that here, and discounting the opinions of those who !voted keep when it does have at least some grounding both in WP:N and in the SNG was not the right call in my mind. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "persuasion" as a matter of policy (V) and guideline (N) comes from producing actual GNG sources. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lankiveil: the bolded summary sentence of NSPORTS is The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. This article did the latter, so it's perfectly reasonable to argue that the article met NSPORTS and should be kept on that basis. The part which says standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline is a meta-comment about the reasons for the existence of subject-specific notability guidelines. Hut 8.5 06:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • For some reason it's been difficult to get a consensus of editors to agree upon a replacement for the second sentence in the sports-specific notability guideline. However the FAQ accurately summarizes the original intent when the guideline was created, which has been reaffirmed multiple times since: the sports-specific notability criteria listed in the guideline do not replace the general notability guideline but only provide temporary relief to avoid a rapid deletion of an article where there is good reason to believe that adequate sources exist. Regardless of what might be the case for other subject-specific notability guidelines, the consensus behind the sports-related ones was to defer to the general notability guideline, and the criteria were not designed to be used as a sole determinant of meeting Wikipedia's standards for having an article. isaacl (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just replying to say I've seen the above response but can't usefully add anything to what TonyBalloni said. Stifle (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a textbook example of WP:NOTAVOTE. Apparently, the main point of contention in this DRV is whether SNGs can override GNG, and I'm with Black Kite that they can't: while the lead of WP:NSPORTS provides some wiggle room (subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria), Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ is pretty explicit. As for sourcing, I'm fine when someone in an AfD debate brings up sources not currently present in the article, but not when they assert that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES; duration of an AfD is exactly the period when we scrutinize sources, and in this case nothing sufficient surfaced up. No such user (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from closing admin - Sorry for the late comment, I've been travelling recently. In my view, this AfD is identical to an AfD that has two votes: one delete vote whose argument is "doesn't meet GNG" and one keep vote whose argument is "yeah, but it meets NCYC". While the actual vote counts were more of a 60-40 split towards the keep side, an AfD is to be judged on the merits of the arguments, not the vote counts. All of the keep voters had the same argument, and all of the delete voters had the same argument. So, I took a look at the quality of each side's argument, and it's difficult for me to imagine anyone trying to make the case that a SNG can trump the GNG. No attempt was made to provide a source that satisfies GNG (presumably because none exists). Some users even contacted me on my talk page to contest the closure, and I told them that I'd reverse the closure if they could provide a single source that even arguably passes GNG. Instead of doing that, they chose to start this DRV, which I think is telling. ‑Scottywong| express _ 16:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep. There's a fine line between summarising a discussion and inadvertently adding to it. Policies and guidelines all have different interpretations, depending on the article, and it is in discussion that we come to some semblance of a compromise/consensus. My take on consensus has been to look at a discussion and see what arguments editors are making. It could be that someone says an article falls under WP:NOT, or is unverifiable or is not notable. And somebody completely different fundamentally disagrees. Ignoring a vote that is patently false (e.g. editor talks about deleting a steam ship when the article is about a biography) is fine. Adding less weight to a blank vote is fine. Disregarding a majority opinion because my interpretation of a guideline is different to theirs is not okay. That this was a test case for a discussion about NSPORTS over at the Village Pump makes the decision by admin even more concerning. Fuebaey (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning that they're looking at the essay WP:NOTAVOTE and not the actual guidelines found at WP:N? Yes. Very. From WP:N - "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1) It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". And the box on the right links to the sportspeople subject-specific guideline. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NOTAVOTE is not meant to be used to ignore a valid guideline in favour of another. Having one person decide what guidelines apply rather than working this out amicably in a discussion is not something I would like to advocate either. Fuebaey (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When NSPORTS says it has to meet the GNG or a subject specific guideline, and then the subject specific guideline says it has to meet the GNG, we're back where we started: it has to meet the GNG. That's what most of the keep voters were not noticing, and that's why it is correct to not give those votes as much weight. Reyk YO! 19:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was the minority opinion given in the AfD. What I find slightly bemusing is that a lot of the discussion above (including the close) is simply a rehash of the AfD - whether NCYC or GNG prevails. Would it not be reasonable to simply relist the AfD, which originally ran for ten days, to incorporate the (uninvolved) statements above? Fuebaey (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2017 (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/2017_May_4&oldid=1075705514"