Ciaren Jones – Overturn and relist. Many of the arguments for preserving the deletion address the merits of the case rather than the procedure. Process is important, because people who might notice the article at AfD and try to defend it will not necessarily come across this DRV. In the absence of a pressing need, an AfD should not be closed early unless it clearly meets the speedy criteria. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This AFD was closed after one(ish) day with no explanation other than 'delete'. Though admittedly it's where consensus was trending, such an out of procedure close struck me as odd. I reached out to the closing admin (Materialscientist) who—after a nudge—responded that it was closed early due to Insufficient notability, citing A7 and that the article was created for self promotion. A7 only applies to articles without a credible claim of significance, and that was not the case with this article (as I remember it). Further, I see no evidence that anyone besides Materialscientist tagged or considered the article for A7 deletion, and I don't believe it applies here. imho this is a case of a bad early close and the AFD should be allowed to run for a full seven days. Eddie891TalkWork 16:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have temporarily undeleted this article while this is here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The close was out of procedure and was also absolutely correct in the result. I would send Materialscientist some trout and take no further action. SportingFlyerT·C 18:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After you subtracted the lies and the promotional content, there wasn't an article left to discuss. Can we serve Materialscientist a side of barnstar along with his grilled trout?—S MarshallT/C 22:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- hoax material can and should be removed the minute it's detected. Out-of-procedure closes like this one are why WP:IAR is a policy. ReykYO! 05:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. The so-called "hoax" material was a misreading of a source - the Premier League 2 (the highest-level league in England for under-23 players) is what the source correctly said, but this was then referred to in the article as the Premier League by mistake. It appears that a number of people have jumped to a conclusion that this is self-promotion, conflict of interest, etc. which seems to me to be unfair. All that said, however, the data available does make it clear that Ciaren has only played in the Premier League 2 and the EFL Trophy, which are not considered fully-professional leagues. Administrators are allowed to, and regularly do, delete articles of their (our) own initiative where they meet CSDs; there is no requirement to tag and let another made the deletion. That, however, should not have happened, as the article contained a credible claim of significance. In summary, we have arrived at the correct result by the wrong route; WP:MINNOW to User:Materialscientist, keep deleted unless someone presents further sources showing he actually has played for a senior team, and please let's leave this listing open for the full duration. Stifle (talk) 08:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted the closing admin shouldn't have done that, and certainly shouldn't make a habit of doing this, but there was no chance of that article surviving the AfD without new information being presented and I don't see any point in reopening it per WP:NOTBURO. Hut 8.5 12:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted as this individual is clearly not notable, but the article was not a hoax and the AFD should not have been closed so speedily. Yes it had some misinformation/exaggerations in it, apparently added by a relative, but it's about a real person. GiantSnowman 15:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 15:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn close and relist This was not an A7, nor does any other speedy deletion criteria apply that I can see. There was no reason for a snow close. This was not particularly promotional, merely an article about a probably non-notable person. A delete result looks likely, but it is possible that a later commentator could have found some other reason why this person is notable, and provided a supporting source. Leaving the AfD open for the normal 7 days costs little effort, and following normal and predictable process here improves confidence that it will be followed in general, as per Procvess is Important. IAR by its own terms, is only to be used when it improves the project, and i don't see how closing an AfD a bit early improves anything. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, right result (probably) wrong process. I'd rather not be supporting these speedy deletions unless they meet the speedy criteria. relist. Hobit (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. It might have been a snow delete after another day or two, but I feel consensus had not reached the level for a snow closure less than a day after listing. Preferably speedily, on the logic that if we accept that this was out-of-procedure, 7 days at AfD is better than 7 days at DRV (and then whatever results). Keep deleted as third choice only if such a close based on a consensus that explicitly considered the merit and not the procedural aspects of the AfD. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist - We should only endorse a SNOW close after less than a day if it is either a speedy or there is strong evidence that an urgent close is in the interests of the encyclopedia. — Charles Stewart(talk) 09:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it is in the encyclopaedia's best interests to remove spam on sight. It's important that we don't reward blatantly promotional articles with seven days' free marketing while the discussion carries on to its inevitable outcome. If the material had been honest and truthful to start with then I might be more inclusionist about it, but now, no.—S MarshallT/C 12:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For those other two AfDs, WP:CLOSEAFD does state early closures are permitted (by administrators) if any of WP:EARLY applies, and that guideline indicates CSDs continue to apply even for articles in AfD. I can't see the articles, but if it is indeed unambiguously A7 then it doesn't really make sense to beat the article through the 7 day AfD process (wp:snow, wp:notbureaucracy, etc). btw, Materialscientist has his pings off so he probably won't see this DRV / those suggestions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn CSD, resume AfD This was not noted as a speedy deletion either in the close or in the deletion log. For a number or reasons, including of any potential G4 ,being clear when an AfD is closed because of a CSD is important. And I will note that only was the article itself deleted but so was a copy of the article in userspace (under U5, which seems iffy without an AfD result) and 2 images (under F9 which they definitely were). After the fact we get an A7 explanation. On that basis, I find there were clearly credible claims of significance here. I can't imagine this surviving AfD but DRV is not AfD. Just as we don't like re-litigating AfD we shouldn't be pre-litigating or supplanting AfD. Based on the example here and provided by Roy, I would ask Materialscientist to provide more clarity when closing an AfD early. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we do restore this for the duration of an AfD, can we please restore it to an unindexed space.—S MarshallT/C 22:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD tag carries a no index on it. As it should have never been indexed it should stay unindexed if it is restored. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Overturn to Relist - A case could have been made for an early closure citing a weather forecast in the Southern Hemisphere, but wasn't exactly. It definitely wasn't either an A7 or a G3 or any other speedy. It needs deleting, but should be done via orderly process. Yuck. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn may fail GNG but certainly not an A7[1]Glen 12:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted he's a non notable footballer, who has not played any proessional games --Devokewater (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
