- Melila Purcell (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Subject passes WP:NGRIDIRON, having played in the Arena Football League per this. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, allow re-creation. The AfD is valid; playing in an AFL game creates a presumption of notability, but the player still needs to satisfy the GNG. The original article had no sources whatsoever. If you can write an article based on multiple in-depth sources then go ahead. Mackensen (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AFL is a redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian rules football. Please avoid local abbreviations. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The article still has to pass WP:GNG, and delete was the correct close for this review. No worries if the article can be recreated. We should also take a look to see if playing in the arena league guarantees a player coverage per WP:GNG to satisfy the presumption of notability, as the league has now folded and was pretty minor for its last few seasons. Also, WP:GNG has to be satisfied - this player only played in one game which qualifies for WP:GRIDIRON and it was a minor league. These sorts of non-GNG satisfying players are typically deleted over at WikiProject Football. SportingFlyer T·C 18:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @SportingFlyer: If you want to propose at WT:NSPORT removing the Arena Football League from WP:NGRIDIRON (or at least certain years of its existence), I'd support that. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, just for my future reference, I'm dumping some news articles about Purcell here: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Newspaper articles that source their information from the subject or the subjects family are not independent of the subject, and so fail to satisfy the WP:GNG. All five sources dumped here are not independent of the subject. Find sources authored by someone independent, from a more distant perspective than a reporter at the field talking to the players family. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yikes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Eagles247, that review was quick, and quick usually means harsh. This athlete is definitely close, so I went through the five more carefully. My analysis, with respect to attesting notability via the WP:GNG:
- 1 By Jason Kaneshiro. Quoting the subject's dad, later the subject, the subject's cousin. It does contain two paragraphs not quoted from the subject/family:
An outside linebacker much of last season, Purcell has settled into his new position at left defensive end leading up to tomorrow's opener.
Purcell signed with Penn State coming out of Leone High School in American Samoa in 2003 and spent two seasons with the Nittany Lions. Upon transferring to UH to play with his older brother, he sat out the 2005 season and made his Warriors debut last year. A knee injury sidelined him for three games and he finished the year with 11 total tackles, including a sack.
The only qualitative contribution from the author is "has settled into", the rest is just facts. For the GNG, this is very weak, but not zero.
- 2 By Rebecca Breyer. Made with with subject's cooperation, and so not independent. It is local newspaper promotion of locals. Does not attest Wikipedia-notability.
- 3 By Dave Reardon. Coach interview. Subject interview. Alo brother and cousins. Very very local coverage emphasizing local and family connections. Does not attest Wikipedia-notability.
- 4 By Stephen Tsai. Backstory of the subject and University of Hawai'i fellow players friendship from 6 years prior, when they played basketball. Very weak but not zero use.
- 5 Interview information from the subject and coach. Not independent. Does not attest Wikipedia-notability.
- I think that these are not good enough, but 1 & 5 are not astraight "no". If you could find one article not from Hawaii, an article that does not centre on interviewing the subject, team coach or players, or family, that might be enough. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- He has a lot of google news hits that are just directory style data pages, sometimes empty. After that, there are news stories of him, such as in New Caledonia in 2011, but they seem to only ever be interviews of him, local reporting, not independent coverage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing stopping you from writing another article about this person. The above argument wasn't raised in the AfD so a recreation which includes it shouldn't be deleted without another AfD (the deleted version doesn't mention Spokane at all). I'm sure we could restore the deleted version to draft space if you'd like to use it as a starting point. Hut 8.5 17:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the close, could not have been closed any other way. However, noting that sources continue to be thrown up, encourage undeleting to draftspace, require passage through WP:AfC for re-creation, and point prominently to the advice at WP:THREE (the number of sources is irrelevant, only the quality of the 2 or 3 best). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator's new source link is worthless. Not an independent secondary source on the subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- My worthless source link is from one of the top statistics websites of the Arena Football League used on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Arena_Football_League/Reliable_Sources), and it is included in Template:Infobox NFL biography as a general reference for arena football players. I brought this article to deletion review because I believe this new information satisfies criteria 3 from WP:DRVPURPOSE. I am not arguing that the close was improper, I would have closed the AFD the same way. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Arena Football League/Reliable Sources is good, but don't confuse "reliable source" with sources that attest notability, aka GNG when push comes to shove.
- I recommend requesting draftification, now while this DRV is running. Add the new sources. Point out the three best. An improved draft version makes it much easier to talk about. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, draft is at Draft:Melila Purcell. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Per our longstanding consensus sports biographies must still pass WP:GNG, the arenafan site doesn't in and of itself grant automatic notability in spite of the fact a listing there would get a player past the WP:NGRIDIRON threshold. It's not "worthless," but especially given the fact he only played one game in the league, there needs to be a showing that he was actually covered by the media, as opposed to bringing up the source to show he (barely) passes a WP:SNG. I also concur with SmokeyJoe's analysis of the articles. Is there any coverage of him from his time with Spokane? SportingFlyer T·C 05:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Without voicing an opinion on whether re-creation should be allowed, if the discussion concludes it should, do not allow the grossly inappropriate and bullying suggestion that the new article should have to go through AfC or otherwise follow higher standards than any other article. WilyD 09:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close, allow re-creation. The AfD was closed correctly based on the information that was available at the time, however, new information has since come to light that would very likely result in a different outcome if the article were sent to AfD today. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close but permit recreation. Do not attempt to mandate an AfC review. AfC is designed to assist new or less experienced editors. It should never be required of any autoconfirmed editor. There is no policy basis for such a requirement. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be required for even old editors IF the deletion was recent (I think recent = 6 months). Otherwise, the deletion process is undermined. This deletion was years ago, so sure, bold recreation is OK. However, I do not see what has changed since 2015, so I expect that the current draft if mainspace could be promptly nominated and deleted at AfD. The discussion may go differently. I would advise the proponent to address the old AfD deletion reasons on the talk page (which too should be undeleted). -SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be a major policy change and would require a site-wide RfC, and I for one would strongly oppose it. In any case, no policy currently allows such a restriction to be imposed on any editor, except perhaps as part of a community-imposed topic ban, and I have not seen that done. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 08:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is at least the second DRV in maybe a month or so where AfC has come up as a possible option and then been vehemently dismissed by its detractors. I think the article itself is a very interesting case: the new information presented at DRV shows the player technically passes a WP:SNG, but barely, and for a minor sports league, and there's no WP:GNG-qualifying coverage of him playing in the league for which he would pass the WP:SNG (the coverage I found was from a Hawaii fan blog and arenafan.com, which is reliable for demonstrating he played in the league and was released after playing one game, but not for conferring WP:GNG notability, as it's just a list of statistics. The article on the player arenafan.com reprinted was from a team press release and clearly primary.) I'm in favour of allowing re-creation if other sources are found, as I don't think any of the sources pass WP:GNG (they're all local/routine transactional/not independent), but we also need to ensure the article's in good enough shape to be recreated - the two best ways of doing this are to either immediately send the article to AfD once it's out of draft space unless substantial improvements are made, or allow it to be peer-reviewed at AfC. There's absolutely no reason experienced editors can't use AfC - we have mandated it for experienced editors whose creations frequently showed up at AfD, and some continue to use it even though the requirement was lifted. I'm somewhat in agreement that it shouldn't necessarily be mandated, I'm not certain it should apply to this specific article, but I see no issue with having it in our arsenal here at DRV, especially because it's not a restriction on the editor but rather on the topic. SportingFlyer T·C 11:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
