Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 January 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2020 January 1
2020 January 3 >

2 January 2020[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Cristian Pache (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
  • Overturn and Keep. Original deletion decision was not consistent with consensus editor comments at AfD and current policies. FYI, I had expressed my opinion in the discussion in favor of a keep. I should point out as well, that in instituting a redirect, the closer did not include the latest version of the article, thereby omitting much of the information that goes towards the notability of the subject of the article. 2604:2000:E010:1100:6C0E:DE1F:73EE:4BF3 (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that there was no discussion with me about this redirect before this was listed as required by the DRV instructions so input is clearly not required. I will therefore not be participating in this discussion or taking questions. Spartaz Humbug! 09:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry. I had not read that-as you say-discussion with the closer was required by the DRV instructions. Re-reading them now, I still actually do not see that as a requirement. I do though now see it mentioned as an attempt to "consider," so the closer can if there was a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding obviate the need for a discussion. Anyway, I did notify the closer, as required, so if he chooses he can write here. Also, I did request that the closer restore the deleted page under review and replace the content with the TempUndelete template, leaving the history for review by non-admins taking part in this discussion (though my request was archived, that has yet to be done).2604:2000:E010:1100:6C0E:DE1F:73EE:4BF3 (talk) 09:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No tempundelete is needed - the article was redirected, so the history's still there for anyone to see (click on the article name here, and then click on the "redirected from" at the top of the page, and then click "view history.") SportingFlyer T·C 09:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems unnecessarily klugey for non-admins. Therefore, I reiterate my request that an admin restore the deleted page temporarily. Also - I reiterate that if this were to be a redirect, an improper old version was used by closer, rather than an appropriate current version that btw reflects much of why the subject is notable, but also is appropriate to have in either an article or a redirect. There is no reason for that material's deletion, and none was given. 2604:2000:E010:1100:6C0E:DE1F:73EE:4BF3 (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Spartaz: I know you claim your input isn't required here since the nominator didn't reach out to you per our norms, but as a participant in the discussion I think your input in this matter would be helpful. SportingFlyer T·C 04:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I participated in the AfD so ignore me when closing this, but not only was the close consistent with the majority of !voters in the discussion (which reflects the current practice of the baseball WikiProject regarding notability of prospects and source analysis for minor league players), none of the keep !voters actually assessed which articles actually qualified Pache for WP:GNG. It is likely Pache will be notable soon, but there's nothing inconsistent with either the editor comments at the AfD or current practice. SportingFlyer T·C 09:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see the close as having been consistent with the majority of !voters in the discussion. And the !vote of the first !voter was, as noted, based on a false premise. 2604:2000:E010:1100:6C0E:DE1F:73EE:4BF3 (talk) 09:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Overturn to No Consensus - The closer has reached a conclusion that is inconsistent with the apparent result of the discussion without explaining why. I recognize that a closer should use judgment as to strength of arguments, but the closer does not explain why the consensus is Delete and Redirect. There doesn't appear to be any consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Keep - that the article passes WP:N was successfully argued and not refuted. It does take a moment to verify this because there are a lot of non-independent sources used in the article, but a very sloppy close. WilyD 06:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just discuss the redirect at Talk:Cristian Pache. The nominator here does not want this deleted, and nothing has been deleted. The only action that has been taken is editing the content to make it a redirect, which doesn't need administrator powers to revert. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. This was nominated at AfD. It has already been discussed at AfD, by a number of editors over a two week period. There is no reason for a new discussion, mirroring the two-week one that we already had. And there was a close at AfD. I think the close was incorrect. I am seeking as the nominator here to have that close reviewed. As "Deletion review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily to appeal ... disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions..." And, as also indicated in the Deletion review directions, "Deletion review may be used ... if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly..." That is exactly what I believe happened. And I am seeking to have the proper action taken - which I (and others above, so far) believe is, based on the discussion had, to overturn that close. 2604:2000:E010:1100:25F8:B237:3473:223E (talk) 09:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do think this is yet another case where applying our current notability rules to people who play sports leads to horribly inconsistent outcomes. It seems as we don't allow articles about corporations of international importance, politicians who got half a million votes, or academics who haven't got full professorship yet -- but somehow we've got to keep an article about this 21-year-old kid whose entire lifetime achievement is to be excellent at hitting a ball with a bat. What that shows me is that NSPORTS is badly out of whack and needs fixing. I'd endorse this or any other non-keep outcome because of basic fairness and consistency with what we do elsewhere in the encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 18:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Keep I participated in the AfD and thought this should have closed as keep. However my track record at DRV is abysmal. Glad to see someone else asked for a review. Lightburst (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No DRV needed. As an editorial action, a redirect can be amended by forming a consensus at the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just passing by to note that this is a short-term discussion, as Pache will be in the major leagues this year, at which appoint his notability will be deemed automatic. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Topic clearly meets WP:N with sources in the article. But SNGs are, in many cases, a compromise. Part of that compromise, in the case of sports folks, is that even with good, but common-for-the-sport coverage we don't cover people until they meet the SNG. Given the the sources and situation, I think both sides had reasonable arguments. Given the !vote count, NC was a much better close. Was this close crazy? No, but I think it is pushing things a bit. I'm torn between weak endorse and weak overturn to NC, but I think the !vote count and sources were such that closing as delete wasn't a real option. weak overturn to NC is where I end up, but it's close. Hobit (talk) 08:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hobit: Would you be kind enough to identify which sources you think pass WP:GNG? This entire discussion hinges on whether there are enough articles that pass WP:GNG that are independent of Pache/are non-routine in the article (in spite of 41 footnotes, I see nothing exceptional) and the AfD didn't have a source discussion (just a disagreement about whether WP:GNG was met.) Pache will likely make the majors next year and both qualify for his own article and receive coverage, so and this will almost certainly be moot soon, but to date no one has actually identified which sources pass WP:GNG. I'd quite appreciate a neutral opinion, would help my decision making going forward at AfC/NPP on baseball prospects. SportingFlyer T·C 11:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The GNG? [1] is an article, in a fairly major paper, solely about him with in-depth coverage (it also includes a 1-minute video on him). [2] is a major paper with an article solely on him. That's two. There are quite a few more. Is that "exceptional" for a minor-league player? Yeah, probably a bit, but not exceptional for someone widely believed to be on-track to make the majors. But meeting the GNG? Sure. In-depth articles published by major, independent, sources? That's what the GNG is. And while those are probably the strongest, there looks to be a few more pretty good ones. Hobit (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree with the assessment, but that's for AfD, but I really do appreciate the response. Thank you! SportingFlyer T·C 23:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Hobit said (which accords with the consensus of the editors at AfD, as I read it. 184.153.21.19 (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse It was a close decision and could have been closed as NC or redirect. The vote count after a relist, as I read it, was 4 delete 4 keep and 2 redirect. Both sides of the discussion put forth reasonable arguments steeped in policy (I recognize that the SNG can lead to some counter-intuitive results, such as this case). Since the decision was squarely within the closer's discretion, I must endorse. --Enos733 (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the Keep-Delete vote was actually 5-4 if we are counting valid votes. Because as pointed out in the AfD discussion, the first delete vote was based on a dramatic misunderstanding (that Orlando Sentinel, Baseball America, Augusta Chronicle, Atlanta Journal Constitution, Rome News Tribune, Danville Register & Bee, The Athletic, etc. are not "independent of the subject.") Under WP:CLOSEAFD, we don't count votes that are clearly based on a mistake, and are therefore not "logical". Beyond that, the 1 or 2 redirect votes clearly didn't reflect the consensus of the 12 or so voters - as that term is understood at WP:CONS - which is what makes this close especially surprising, and WP:CLOSEAFD says that the close should reflect the consensus of the voting editors (otherwise, it's like saying the vote between Trump and Clinton was close, so we will name Bernie the President - which though it may have thrilled some voters, is not cricket). One cannot make a silk purse from a sow's ear. 184.153.21.19 (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus – The Orlando Sentinel and AJC links above are, in my view, within the range where reasonable editors can disagree about whether or not it's WP:SIGCOV. It's not unreasonable to view those two as examples of non-routine coverage, for example. I don't see any grounds to discount the !votes of keep !voters who feel that the sourcing meets GNG, nor do I see grounds for discounting the !votes of delete !voters who feel the sourcing doesn't meet GNG. So while there's consensus the player doesn't meet NBASEBALL, there's no consensus over whether or not the player meets GNG, and I don't really see how a closer can find consensus in that particular discussion. I especially don't see how a closer can find consensus to redirect when only one !voter was explicitly in favor of redirecting, and everyone else was in favor of either keeping or deleting. – Levivich 07:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • With regards to your last point, the player is already well covered on the page where the redirect links to, so I would read at least my !delete vote should be read as "not a standalone page yet" as opposed to "don't include any information on this person in the encyclopaedia." I also put draftify since I didn't realise he was already on the prospects page. SportingFlyer T·C 08:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh sure, make a liar out of me :-) Thanks for the clarification, I guess I shouldn't have assumed that delete !voters were not in favor of redirecting; I've updated my comments. Cheers! – Levivich 16:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus I was the only editor who explicitly !voted redirect, and while a couple other editors did suggest that as a possibility without explicitly !voting for it, I'm not seeing any consensus for anything here, and several of the delete !votes seem to be based on either misunderstandings of either Independence of sources or GNG vs. SNG and should have been discounted. Smartyllama (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Template:Uw-vandalism0 – Consensus is to endorse as the notification matter is not viewed as a serious procedural issue here (as the editor not notified was not the page creator). Some people think that recreation should be allowed if the template is still in use (it not being in use was a key argument for deletion), although one editor has noted that in such a case an userspace copy would work just as well if it's only one editor using it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Uw-vandalism0 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I was not notified about the TfD discussion, although I had participated in the previous (2013) discussion and it was the wording which I had proposed in that discussion which was agreed and implemented. The reason given in this new TfD was that the proposer didn't "know of any user or bot who still uses this template in 2019 or 2020 and thus the template is likely to be deprecated". I still prefer the wording to that of Template:Uw-vandalism1 (for example because it suggests looking at the welcome page, rather than pointing new users at the help page before they have been given any other advice) and I have been using it regularly (most recently at User talk:86.146.213.192 yesterday before the redirect was put in place). Those who prefer Template:Uw-vandalism1 are of course welcome to use it, but I see no reason to remove this template from those of us who have been using it. David Biddulph (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Meh. One part of me wants to say, "If somebody is still using this, then the basic premise, that it's unused, is wrong, so restore it.". The other part of me wants to say, "Who cares, it's a substituted template. Just put a copy in your user space and use that." -- RoySmith (talk) 03:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment post-deletion, is there any way to tell how many times this template was used in the last year? I'm for restoring it, but David, if you're one of a select few using it, I'd support the user space option proposed above. SportingFlyer T·C 05:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's a table that keeps track of template transclusions, but as far as I can tell, there's no way to track substitutions. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a deletion issue. Ask the closer, User:Plastikspork, to relist. If he won't, raise your objection on the talk page of the redirect target. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse "I was not notified" is never a valid reason to overturn a deletion discussion, unless it is presented by the creator of the page. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course I wasn't suggesting the lack of notification as the reason to overturn, but merely explaining why I hadn't commented on the TfD. My point was that the reason for deletion given by the proposer was not a sound reason. I have taken note of the suggestion to use a user space copy if the template isn't restored. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, allow re-creation - the discussion isn't deficient, but as deletion was based on the "nobody is using it" argument, a recreated version wouldn't be G4-esque redirectable. WilyD 10:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, allow re-creation. What Wily said. There's no harm in allowing alternative wording, and clearly someone still uses it. Since the template was simply redirected, that should be undone. Mackensen (talk) 12:06, 3 January 2020 (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/2020_January_2&oldid=1039531023"