The Articles for Deletion discussion was closed as no consensus (and thus kept) with a untrue and inaccurate closing statement on the basis of a so-called 50:50 split headcount (it was actually 8 delete with 1 merge vs 4 keep votes). Beside that, I feel no proper weight was given to the arguments with consideration of reviewing the sources used. Discussion with the closing admin is HERE (started by another user) for further info, which is not much responded to. I suggest an overturn. Cold Season (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be invoking point 1 if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly - but Ritchie333 explains that the 50:50 split was metaphorical. For a !vote, what counts is arguments, not pure numbers of !votes. The lead of the present version shows that prominent journalists and academics at reputable universities in both the English-speaking and French-speaking world claim that the Protests of 2019 are a topic of human knowledge. Some of the deletion discussion participants - Wikipedians - disagree with those external sources. An argument one way (pro-deletion) is that it is WP:OR to agree with the sources; the opposite argument (pro-keep) is that it is is WP:OR to disagree with the external sources. Surely we can agree that Ritchie333 has accurately summarised our lack of agreement on this point?
My worry is that this falls under point 5 of arguments that don't justify a deletion review: to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion. Boud (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, with the disclaimer that I'm one of the main editors of the article (not the creator!); and I've been an active participant in the AfD. Boud (talk) 14:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a valid conclusion by the closer that there was no consensus either to delete or to keep. I am assuming that the appellant wants the close changed to Delete, but it doesn't matter, because No Consensus is valid. If there is disagreement about the wording used by the closer, it isn't worth the argument. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I understand the frustration of the nominator as I would have likely !voted delete in this AfD on OR/SYNTH grounds, and I think delete would have been a stronger close here, but multiple closes can be valid in a discussion and no consensus was a valid close here. This was especially outlined by the discussion on Ritchie333's talk page. SportingFlyerT·C02:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse On the "keep" side we have DGG (not exactly unknown for making good arguments to delete) saying "(BBC, The Independent, The Guardian) all talk specifically about he connections between the protests. That's enough evidence for a genuine topic" while on the "delete" side we have "Fake news!" Although this is cherry picking, it does easily demonstrate that you cannot close an AfD on numbers alone. This reminds me of the time somebody complained about me advocating violence after I said "DYK should be taken outside and shot". Good grief. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)08:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Keep - the delete arguments consist entirely of variants of "I don't like it" or factually incorrect assertion that it's OR not based on the sources (any examination of the sources will reveal this to be false, which DGG pointed out fairly early on). The keep If there are bits of OR in the article, they can be pruned (as with any article). Note that the discussion was advertised here and possibly other places, making a straight headcount particularly dubious (and of course, I'm always suspicious of discussions where a factually incorrect argument gets repeated, as it was here). WilyD09:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the numbers are weighted towards deletion but not massively so and several of the Delete comments don't state valid arguments at all. The main question in that debate was whether the sources cover the subject as a coherent topic, opinion was pretty split on that question and neither side had a knockdown argument. A no consensus close reflects that. Hut 8.521:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse You shouldn't waste time with deletion review just because you didn't get the result you wanted. Nothing wrong with the close here. DreamFocus23:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Most of the delete !votes were simply nonsense and may have resulted from WP:CANVAS or other inappropriate motives. I'm sympathetic with the argument from WilyD that it should be overturned to keep, but ultimately I consider it a waste of time to discuss whether it should have been closed as no consensus or keep, as the effect of either is the same, and will not do so. If we discount the nonsense !votes, consensus clearly wasn't to delete. Smartyllama (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I opened the AfD, and questioned Ritchie on the close. See, I agree with his explanation. Though there were more delete!votes, many of them were a standard "delete per X" - and the same goes for the keep!votes. This ultimately means that there was effectively one argument for each side. Though I do feel some of the comments attached to votes (see: "fake news!") were made with the belief that no more needed to be said on the matter when it looked quite SNOW, we can easily open another deletion discussion, because, yes, my concerns about OR and SYNTH have not been assuaged by new sources - but that is not an argument to challenge a close, so I do not think there is much to argue on the close front, Ritchie's reason made sense. Kingsif (talk) 03:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse-ish - I think the close was a fair assessment of the consensus at the time of the close, even though I would have preferred a re-list to get closer to a better consensus. It's perfectly acceptable to re-nom this article in the new year (e.g., next summer) if no-one is talking about these protests as linked then on possible grounds of it failing WP:LASTING. I think, for a supposed year-long event, if no-one is talking about them in following years then the impact was clearly not lasting, and I expect that this will likely actually be the case. FOARP (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Ryszard Walkiewicz – No consensus. Numerically, it's 11 overturn to 7 endorse (or thereabouts, I'm bad at counting). That's no consensus. In terms of arguments, I'm not sure that I should attempt to weigh them as much in a DRV as I would in an AfD, and in any case I would have little basis for doing so. People disagree about the relationship between specific notability guidelines and the GNG, which is a notoriously difficult topic, and not one in which I'm comfortable with deciding by fiat who's right. For lack of consensus at DRV, therefore, the closure is maintained by default. (A third relist doesn't seem useful to me here.) Sandstein 12:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This is the reverse situation from the recently closed Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_November_20 Ernesto Alcati DRV, where consensus was clear a historical article with potential non-English which passed a sports SNG should be kept even though WP:GNG had not been definitively established. As I noted in that DRV, whether WP:GNG was met was not disproved by any of the delete !voters. Here, consensus to keep this article about a Polish footballer from the 1950s was even stronger, as Mr. Walkiewicz did make several appearances in modern sources, and whether WP:GNG was met was not disproved by any of the delete !voters. The closer applied their own interpretation of policy, which was that none of the keep !voters demonstrated WP:GNG was met, see here for the response. This misinterpreted my !vote. As I noted in my vote, we delete articles which meet the footy/sports SNG when it is clear the presumption that WP:GNG-qualifying coverage exists has been overcome. This is very easy to do with current players, but as I noted in my !vote, we cannot tell if he passes WP:GNG without looking at contemporaneous sources. This is nearly impossible for me to do given the era and the language, but the !votes which mentioned this difficulty were discounted by the closer for not demonstrating any sources where the presumption was challenged. None of the delete !voters performed a search either, and the nominator did not mention WP:GNG. Furthermore, the article itself was perfectly fine, with a number of distinct albeit short mentions in modern sources. For examples of a situation where historical articles have failed the WP:GNG presumption, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Adams (1920s footballer)SportingFlyerT·C11:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I am the closing admin for this AfD. The key point here from the statement above is we cannot tell if he passes WP:GNG. I'm not sure where the accusations that None of the delete !voters performed a search. This seems to be completely unfounded. Furthermore whilst the article did contain a number of distinct albeit short mentions in modern sources, these were either in primary sources or were mentions by name, and little to nothing else, certainly nothing to satisfy GNG. Finally to then list examples where articles have been kept despite not demonstrating GNG seems to strange, WP:NFOOTY, as part of WP:NSPORT is merely a presumption of GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT is quite clear on the sourcing required under the presumptions of the various SNGs within NSPORT.
To add further clarity on me deletion decision, the below as from my own talk page outlining my assessment of the keep votes and why I felt that their strength was so weak as to not support a keep conclusion:
Let's review the keep votes, so you can be in no doubt about my conclusions regarding the weakness of these:
Sporting Flyer - keep vote that does not cite any sources to support GNG. Vote actually acknowledges inability to find sources. Singularly fails to deal with the challenge put in place that the presumption of GNG is not met.
Lightburst - again just a "meets NFOOTY" keep vote, no attempt to deal with GNG. No sources cited to indicate GNG in this instance.
Nfitz - again just a "meets NFOOTY" keep vote, no attempt to deal with GNG. No sources cited to indicate GNG in this instance
OLLSZCZ - a discussion of GNG, but not in any real way to address the subject, just a theoretical conversation on the nature of GNG which adds nothing to this specific discussion. No sources cited to indicate GNG in this instance.
Alexh - no policy cited. In fact the statement that this player was playing in a non-professional period seems to indicate NFOOTY failure, let alone GNG.
Smartyllama - statement of passing GNG but no attempt to support this with any sources. No engagement when challenged.
To reiterate for the third time, NFOOTY is not a guarantee of notability, it is a presumption. This was challenged and even though the AfD was relisted twice, nothing was presented which even begun to support GNG. This should be unsurprising to almost everyone as the player played only a very small number of games, so I am not sure what sources editors would expect to see to support GNG for someone who had such a minor impact on the game. Fenix down (talk) 11:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I explicitly rebutted the nominator's presumption that the SNG should be higher than just one game, even though that's clearly what WP:NFOOTY says. The nominator did not discuss WP:GNG at all, or even if they had performed any sort of WP:BEFORE search. I also explicitly noted WP:GNG is difficult to determine for this article as he's noted in several modern sources, but not substantially. I could only find digitised Polish newspapers online through the early 1930s. My point, as it stood in the AfD, is that it's very difficult to determine whether he meets WP:GNG, and we give the benefit of the doubt - the presumption, as you will - to non-BLPs who meet SNGs from outside the English-speaking world when WP:NEXIST isn't disproven (especially in light of the fact he has been mentioned in modern sources), and I've noted a recent DRV where no consensus existed on this exact point. This viewpoint should not have been discarded. SportingFlyerT·C12:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- there seems to be a misconception that meeting an SNG permanently exempts the subject from the usual sourcing requirements. That is not so. It's merely a rebuttable presumption that the subject meets the GNG-- when challenged, you do actually have to come up with the sources. And it's no use reversing the burden of proof by trying to claim that people who looked for sources and couldn't find any have an obligation to prove they actually looked. Good close. As for a good way to proceed from here, generally the best thing to do with sportsperson stubs amounting to only statistical entries and no biographical information, is to merge them into a suitable List of XYZ footballers or the like. ReykYO!12:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to make clear I'm not trying to get this article "exempted from sourcing requirements forever" because it meets a SNG. The fact the player has been mentioned by modern historians makes it likely there's contemporaneous sources from the 1950s in Poland, but nobody in the discussion has access to those sources. If someone had been able to search those sources and yielded nothing, that's a clear delete. As it stands, we're deleting a valid article because the sources about him on the internet don't rise to our modern standards, even though there's enough modern sources to write a valid stub. SportingFlyerT·C13:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That might not be the intention, but it would certainly be the effect. The AfD was open for three weeks. That should be enough time to procure sources if they actually exist. If that's not long enough, how long would you suggest? Three months? Three years? An indefinitely prolonged exemption from WP:V and WP:GNG might as well be a permanent one. ReykYO!14:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What are you suggesting I do, learn Polish and raise money for a trip to search the Warsaw library to definitively prove or disprove this person's notability? I've tried to find newspaper archives to search from the time period online and haven't been able to search, and I don't know Polish anyways. The subject has been mentioned in five modern online sources, WP:V is met, the SNG is met, the only thing we don't have is a definitive answer on whether he's notable because of his era and the part of the world he came from, but the consensus acknowledged this and still voted to keep. This is an edge case just like Alcati last week, and typically in edge cases, we've defaulted to keep. SportingFlyerT·C15:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article was sourced - why say otherwise? Personally, I didn't over those weeks spend hours trying to research further, as it seemed clear that there wasn't the consensus to delete during the discussion. Nfitz (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (!voted delete in AfD) – this player played in one professional game. There are no GNG sources. That's a delete. It doesn't matter how many editors !vote "Keep, meets NFOOTY", all those !votes get discounted, because they ignore WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. In response to SF's question above, "What are you suggesting I do, learn Polish and raise money for a trip to search the Warsaw library to definitively prove or disprove this person's notability?" I would say what we're supposed to do is delete this article. Obviously it's not worth a trip to Warsaw to investigate a player who played in one professional game. These barely-pass-NFOOTY-but-no-GNG articles are routinely deleted at AfDs (and "NFOOTY keeps" are routinely discounted), so I'm not sure why this article is different and worth DRVing. There were two relists by two admins, each of whom noted that GNG wasn't being addressed by keep !voters. I'm not sure how this could have gone any other way, given the extremely, abundantly clear guidance at WP:N, WP:ATHLETE, and the FAQ at WT:ATHLETE, that meeting the SNG but not meeting GNG = delete. I really, really don't understand why some editors !vote to keep articles about football players that played in one game about whom there is no sourcing to be found. Why is it so important to give every damn footballer their very own page in the encyclopedia? I don't get it. – Levivich15:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My recollection was there were several sources in the article. However the article isn't visible. Can it be made so, for the purposes of this discussion? Nfitz (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support request for temp undeletion as always, but going off of this mirror, there were five refs in the article. Two were statistics websites [1][2], two were just his name in a list of players [3][4], and the fifth [5] had one sentence about the subject, "Gdzieś z Trójmiasta przyszedł Ryszard Walkiewicz", which translates to "Ryszard Walkiewicz came from somewhere in the Tri-City", and that's it. None came even close to being WP:SIGCOV. – Levivich17:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Consensus was clearly to keep at the AfD. DRV is not supposed to be a rehashing of AfD arguments. The question is did the closer judge consensus correctly, and the answer is clearly no. If the closer disagreed with the consensus, they should have !voted. Smartyllama (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus. I disagree with User:Smartyllama in that I don't see a consensus to Keep, but I don't see a consensus for anything. In particular, I don't see a consensus that GNG wasn't met. I see a lack of consensus that GNG was met, but Delete requires a rough consensus to Delete, which isn't there. I respectfully disagree with the endorsers, because I think that they are relitigating, and are saying that GNG wasn't met. That isn't the question, which is whether there was a consensus on GNG, which there wasn't, either way. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus - exactly how in depth sources need to be is somewhat subjective, and there's no consensus in the discussion whether they're adequate or not here (and really, when we're looking at the kind of records you get with sports, this is a common source of non-consensus). If you ever thing your close is being bold, you really need to be confident you're synthesising the discussion into an outcome everyone can live with; not just choosing one side you personally find more convincing. WilyD08:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Keepno consensus. Much of the discussion above is rehashing the AFD, not looking at the closure. I feel review of the keeps above, misrepresents my keep discussion, falsely claiming that I just said "meets NFOOTY", and ignoring my discussion of GNG. Consensus in the closure is that WP:NFOOTBALL was met. The article was nominated on the basis it didn't mean WP:NFOOTBALL with no mention of GNG. Only two people endorsed deletion, with the first also claiming that WP:NFOOTBALL wasn't met, and making the first mention of GNG, but not giving any indication why GNG wasn't met; the second concludes that WP:NFOOTBALL was met, but says that GNG wasn't met, with no indication what they looked at to conclude that. There's a lot of time necessary to search for foreign-language sources from a player active almost 70 years ago - personally, I never even started to do that, because I never saw any consensus to delete the article, and there are sources in the article to meet any WP:V,WP:RS, WP:BLP, or WP:NOR concerns. Nfitz (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changing from Overturn to no consensus to Overturn to keep. Dream Focus makes a good point below, and several Keep votes were clear that subject specific guidelines were met. Nfitz (talk) 01:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about rehashing the arguments at AfD. Many people here don't seem to get that. The question for this DRV is not which sources are reliable, it's whether the closer correctly judged consensus. That is the only question that people here should consider, and I'd encourage whoever closes this DRV to disregard other opinions. Smartyllama (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We're supposed to judge whether the closer correctly applied policy. In order to help me do that, I'd just like to ask: which one of those sources is meant to be reliable?—S MarshallT/C18:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any discussion in the AFD that any commentators expressed concerns about the reliability of the sources - nor was it mentioned in the closing statement. If that's a real concern, then there's no prejudice against a future AFD (or even relisting) - it doesn't validate the closure as being correct. Nfitz (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus I think that close crosses the line between reading the consensus and taking part in the discussion. Subject-specific notability guidelines such as NFOOTBALL are supposed to create a presumption of notability, and WP:N makes it clear that topics shouldn't be deleted on notability grounds if sources are likely to exist, and that notability is based on the existence of sources rather than the current state of the sourcing. It is reasonable for the Keep proponents to rely on NFOOTBALL as creating a presumption of notability. It is a notability guideline, after all. Whether it should be a notability guideline is a separate question that isn't for an AfD to decide. Determining whether the subject here actually does meet the GNG would require searching of 1950s Polish sources, and there wasn't any indication that anybody had tried this. Hut 8.522:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OverturnWP:NOTABILITY clearly states an article is notable if it passes the GNG or one of the subject specific guidelines. It has never had to do both. The subject specific guidelines would not exist if the GNG had to be passed no matter what. If most people believe the article passed the appropriate subject specific guideline, then it should've been closed as KEEP. This is clearly a supervote. DreamFocus23:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this completely incorrect, NSPORT is very clear that the standards in each SNG are mere presumptions of GNG. Specifically WP:SPORTCRIT is key here and clearly states A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published[2] non-trivial[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject. Passing an SNG is merely a presumption of notability. Wider GNG still needs to be shown, especially when challenged and we were not even close in this AFD. Fenix down (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The word "presumed" on the notability page links to Rebuttable presumption. You are assuming the presumption has been rebutted because no one demonstrated sources, but it hasn't. You noted here that "if you can't find sources, you shouldn't be voting keep," which I strongly disagree with in this instance. As an example, if this were a Polish politician stub from the 1950s that passed WP:NPOL and WP:V from modern sources but not quite WP:GNG because 1950s sources are difficult to find, the presumption the politician is notable hasn't been disproven if nobody does a source search at AfD. I also admit it's rather rare to be in a position where you can't search for sources, which makes the consensus of the AfD even more important. SportingFlyerT·C11:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect. In your example above, WP:BASIC, clearly noted at the start of WP:NBIO, is key, you can't just ignore it and jump to a later section that is clearly governed by an earlier one. Furthermore, per WP:NRV, Notability requires verifiable evidence. If you can't present sources to verify notability then the subject is not notable. It is not up to editors to prove a negative. Fenix down (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That fails to note that the same FAQ (Q1) then goes on to note that "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 reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them" - and given the time to fly to Warsaw and search 1950s newspapers, we would suspect to find additional soruces. The page also notes that "These FAQ answers reflect the decisions found in the talk page archives. Please feel free to change them in light of new discussion.". Nfitz (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that this is the only endorse !vote so far that actually commented on whether the closer judged consensus properly rather than simply rehashing the arguments at AfD. I agree with Nfitz's rebuttal, but at least you used DRV for its proper purpose. I hope the closer treats the endorses with appropriate weight. Smartyllama (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – If a player played 50 years ago, editors vote "keep, meets NFOOTY" and argue for an "inaccessible sources" exception to GNG as they are doing here. But if a player is playing today, editors vote "keep, meets NFOOTY" and argue for a "young and ongoing" exception to GNG, as they just did there. They just want a stand alone page about every pro footballer, period, end of story, secondary sourcing be damned. Arguments that meeting an SNG is sufficient ignores all of our notability guidelines-GNG, NBIO, ATH, etc. If a closer isn't allowed to discount such votes, that ignores NOTAVOTE and turns Footy AfDs into a mere head count. The argument that playing in one game means we can "presume" there will be sources is complete BS, we all know it, and it's been shown to be false in AfDs time and time again. Has there ever been a one-game player who been shown to meet GNG? So long as editors are allowed to put forward statistics websites and suggest they count for notability, or vote keep just because a player meets nfooty by having played in one game (or two)—and closers aren’t allowed to discount such votes—then Footy AfDs will be a completely pointless exercise. – Levivich13:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note:@Levivich: As Dream focus has stated: The subject specific guidelines would not exist if the GNG had to be passed no matter what. Professional athletes are known for their participation in competitive professional sport. They are not un-notable because they have not generated press. SNG is a hurdle which has been cleared and the majority of editors have stated this in the AfD. In any event we are here because the XfD closer has rejected the will of the many editors who have participated in the AfD - we have an actual policy which was ignored WP:CONSENSUS. The article can be nominated over and over again, but in this case, the closer incorrectly gave the article the death penalty. Closer claimed I'm going to be bold and close this as delete. It is ok to be bold, but it is not ok to go against our very clear policies. Lightburst (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is absolute nonsense, WP:SPORTCRIT is quite clear what is required, as I have already noted above, namely: A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. An SNG is a presumption that at a certain level players will have achieved sufficient success that the level of coverage they have received will satisfy WP:SPORTCRIT, it is not a substitute in any way for GNG. This is further supported by the statement in the Applicable policies and guidelines section of NSPORT, which says categorically that: the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. If this cannot be shown then the player is not notable. We absolutely do not assume notability on the basis that sources must exist. Fenix down (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely - it says "should".; it doesn't say "must", and allows us to apply WP:COMMONSENSE in these rarer cases. Meanwhile WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators says "Administrators must use their best judgment, attempting to be as impartial as is possible for a fallible human, to determine when rough consensus has been reached". I'm not convinced that the closing was impartial, and correctly judged the rough consensus. Nfitz (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's just semantics. WP:NRV is clear: there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. There's no wiggle room there, if you cant show sources demonstrating notability the subject isn't notable. In that sense "should" equates to "must". Fenix down (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NRV never becomes applicable - at the top of that page (WP:N} it says "It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". N is met through the path to the right, not the path below. Nfitz (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're also cherry-picking your quotes from WP:DGFA. You have ignored the statements, Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument and Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability [specific section chosen by me for emphasis]...) These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. Basically, if you can't show sources exits to support notability, it doesn't matter howm many "keep, meets SNG" votes there are, they count for nothing. Fenix down (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You cherry picked the consensus - above you described the keep votes, choosing to ignore all the bits that defied your biased opinion that the article should be deleted. You then cherry picked the delete votes to ignore that 2 of the 3 deletes (including the nomination) falsely argued that NFOOTBALL wasn't met! The only valid delete in the debate, simply said "a bare NFOOTY pass (like one game) is not a reason to keep an article when there's a total failure of GNG". That you find a strong argument there, given all the counter-points, easily demonstrates that you failed to be impartial - invalidating the close! And not for the first time either, looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salem Khalvan. Nfitz (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, as noted above I did what was required and assessed the strength of the arguments. Now there may end up being consensus here that my assessment was wrong and that's fine, but that's completely different from cherry picking. Fenix down (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst: There are no "very clear policies" about this. Strictly, there are no policies at all. WP:N is a guideline. Generally, the fundamental question is: can an article be kept at AfD if it's only shown to meet an SNG, but not shown to meet GNG? Some say yes, some say no. I think the existing guidelines, including WP:N, NBIO and ATH, and the ATH FAQ, are clear that the answer is no. I think our policies NOR and V are clear that articles must have secondary sources. But there are like 5–10 editors who are regular NFOOTY AfD voters who disagree, at least in part–who feel that, under certain circumstances, an article can be kept even without any GNG sources. I'm on the other end of the spectrum: I would have us speedily delete any article that doesn't have two arguably-GNG-satisfying sources, because I think verification is the most important thing, and much more important than broadness or completeness. I wonder if it's time for an RfC.Specifically, as it relates to this DRV, the question is: can a closer discount !votes that do not address GNG? Can a closer discount !votes that assert GNG is met but do not provide any sources as evidence? I think the answer to both is yes. – Levivich17:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: Ah... the five pillars. referring to WP:5P5. I was referring to WP:CONSENSUSThis page documents an English Wikipedia policy. the XfD closer ignored in favor of their own bold delete. That is why we are here. Again apply the actual policy of consensus to this deletion review - the closer ignored the different interpretations of GNG SNG and cast a WP:SUPERVOTE more accurately a Consensus-reversal supervote which says... There are several varieties of supervote, all of them problematic except the last one:. (by the way this closer's supervote is the first one) Should the closer of this review also go Bold and ignore the actual wp:consensus policy? Lightburst (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@LB: All bold emphasis is mine. The WP:CONSENSUSpolicy says:
Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), neither is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised.
Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.
Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.
Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether an article violates these content policies. Where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, policy must be respected above individual opinions.
Put that together, and I see a policy and guideline that strongly support the notion that if a topic cannot be properly sourced, !votes to keep can be discounted by a closer, and no WikiProject can make an exception for itself. At the top of this DRV, the closer indicated six !votes that he discounted for being contra to PAGs, because they were arguing to keep an article based on the topic passing an SNG, even where there were no GNG sources to be found. I think that's a valid weighting of !votes per the CONSENSUS policy and DGFA, N, NBIO, and ATH guidelines. – Levivich18:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: I understand your point here. What about your other point? There are no "very clear policies" about this. Strictly, there are no policies at all. WP:N is a guideline. This directly contradicts. For every policy there is a competing policy, guideline or essay. One point I will continue to make, is deletion is the equivalent of the death penalty. The article can be nominated infinite times, but it got the death penalty against consensus when you state WP:N is a guideline. However WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can and does change. Local consensus in the AfD and here is against your position. Lightburst (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The part the many editors ignore in WP:N is it is SNG or GNG not both
A topic is presumed to merit an article if:
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
@LB: "Presumed notable" doesn't mean "is notable", and the word "presumed" is linked to Rebuttable presumption, which means it possible that something that is "presumed notable" might not actually be notable (the presumption is rebutted). So right there, meeting those two criteria doesn't mean it has to be kept. I think it's not "a very clear policy" because it doesn't say exactly how that presumption is rebutted. But a "keep meets NFOOTY" !vote is a vote to keep based on the justification that meets the WP:ATH guideline. So we should look at the ATH guideline, and not just at WP:N, to see how the presumption is applied, and how it can be rebutted. The answer to whether ATH applies is in ATH, not in N. And ATH says Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb ... Again, that's not very clear. It basically says that meeting the criteria doesn't mean shit, and failing the criteria doesn't mean shit, you're on your own, good luck! Thanks, authors of ATH. (Athholes.) So, I think we can argue all day long about the vague meanings of our notability guidelines, but boy would our time be better spent drafting new language and having a vote on that. As far as this DRV goes, I think that a closer can properly discount a !vote that doesn't address whether the article can be sourced in compliance with the core content policies. So when core-policy-compliance is challenged, "meets [SNG]" is not a valid justification, because SNGs aren't core policies like V, NOR, and BLP (if applicable), etc. An article that meets GNG would meet all those core policy requirements–that's the point of GNG–but that's not true for an SNG. – Levivich19:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't crossed my mind we were into name-calling and blatant violations of WP:5P4 ... which seems ironic as we ponder enforcement of non-firm rules as per WP:5P5 and a close that violate WP:5P2. Perhaps if I sell the movie rights of the encyclopedia, I can go for the quinfecta. Nfitz (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The above discussion is a classic example of what should not happen at DelRev - people trying to make it a second AFD. The only question here is whether the closer assessed the consensus properly. The contention, never fully addressed, was that GNG was not met. GNG not being met, the close was appropriate. This was a borderline case but calling it as being on this side of off-side was within the ref's margin of appreciation. FOARP (talk) 09:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure FOARP how you get delete out of that discussion. The nomination didn't mention with GNG or express any concern with the sources, erroneously pointing to other issues. One of the two deletes wrongly identified NFOOTBALL as the issue, and simply claimed GNG not met, without discussing any of the sources in the article. The only other delete also claimed that GNG wasn't met - but didn't discuss any of the sources. If GNG was really the issue, there needed to be more discussion of that in the AFD other than name checking a policy without discussing the sources, or looking for more. Nfitz (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz - I saw the AFD and was minded to vote keep. However, after doing my WP:BEFORE I saw there really were no sources that I could find that would show WP:GNG beyond those already cited (which did not really do it as they lacked WP:SIGCOV), but I didn't vote delete because it seemed possible that someone else would find them. TL;DR - I was sympathetic to the Keep position and might have voted that way. However, this isn't a second AFD, it's a DelRev, and the only thing to be decided here is whether consensus was read properly. The closer seems to have found the delete arguments more convincing that the delete ones, they explained why they found them more convincing - and boiled down to its essentials its because WP:GNG was not shown and that's basic policy, whilst WP:NFOOTY is just a guideline. FOARP (talk) 09:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FOARP Though WP:GNG (general notabilty guideline) is also a guideline - this is confirmed at the top of that page WP:N. You may be thinking of WP:V, which was surely met with the 5 references. GNG is on the WP:N page, which near the top, notes that "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". While not meeting GNG, it does meet the sports guideline to the right (i.e. WP:NFOOTBALL on WP:ATH). Nfitz (talk) 11:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies - you are correct that WP:GNG is also a guideline. However, it is a higher-level guideline, and WP:NFOOTY states that it only creates a presumption. The closer appears to have been satisfied that this presumption was rebutted. FOARP (talk) 11:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The discussion really goes to two things. One did the player pass WP:GNG as the keep voters didn't bring any references to the table when that inital discussion started. The references that were already in the article were what you would WP:PRIMARY resources as all of the references were statistics and not news resources for this player. Yeah the player might of pass WP:NFOOTY but WP:GNG is usually the main reason for these one game players. Secondly, was the closer right in closing this as he went pass the WP:CON and judged the votes in what he thought was the correct decision. Personally I am on the fence here as I would of voted delete in the original vote because I but with the possibly of what has come out then I am not so sure. HawkAussie (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Primarily due to my concerns that the closing admin is not neutral in matters like this. They have previously expressed a point of view in line with said close and this looks like a WP:Supervote. Following a spate of similar closes earlier this year, I raised concerns about this behaviour in private and requested that they refrain from closing these types of AfDs (which they do on a regular basis and almost always in this manner) due to the supervote issue, but this suggestion was not taken on board. Number5717:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Overturn because I think the closer is biased" is begging the question a bit, isn’t it? Can you comment substantively on the close—e.g., how !votes should have been weighed by the closer, and the two points raised by HawkAussie above? Thanks. – Levivich17:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think Number 57 explained their reasoning quite well, it's clear they thought this was a supervote and that the closer was biased. You, on the other hand, need to learn not to WP:BLUDGEON or we may need to escalate this once this DRV closes. You have shown repeated tendencies to bludgeon both here and at the other AfD. But this isn't the place to discuss that, ANI is, so that's all I'll say on that matter here. Smartyllama (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLUDGEON is an essay, and a poorly thought out one at that. If anyone tries to go to ANI purely on grounds of WP:BLUDGEON, with no actual indications of uncivil behaviour, I'll be voting against. Why? Because it essentially criminalises being in the minority in an argument. If it were simply about repetition then I could accept that, but it goes beyond that to forbidding a single editor discussing with multiple editors and responding to each in turn. It is against the spirit ofWP:NOTAVOTE in that it potentially prevents a single editor discussing with multiple others. FOARP (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus (leaning keep) in the discussion. This is an SNG vs GNG issue which we've not really settled. Count went toward keep, I don't think delete was a viable outcome. Hobit (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
