Okilani Tinilau – Endorse given that consensus to overturn to a different outcome is unlikely to form, and even overturners are sharply divided on what to overturn to. Consensus to delete in particular did not seem reachable. There is a rough consensus that the closer's closing statement only escalated the controversy, however. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Supervote "keep" admittedly based on sheer number of votes (in violation of WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS) plus closer's own personal criteria of notability ("we must have some sensitivity to the fact that there will be subjects from minority groups in smaller countries for whom sources in English will be sparse or less accessible than for subjects in large English-speaking countries" -- no evidence for this claim) which do not align with consensus. WP:NSPORT says content creators should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline and biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, but there was general agreement even among the keep voters that only one source contained SIGCOV and no agreement that it was reliable. Avilich (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist (involved). The reasoning behind the close seemed to rest on an attitude/approach that did not enjoy consensus or even minority support, let alone P&G backing. JoelleJay (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (as closer), consensus may not be an exercise in vote-counting, but neither is it possible to ignore the 15 editors who !voted to keep, rendering a clear consensus of participants in the discussion who believe that the subject is sufficiently notable. It is not disputed that the athlete in question is among the most notable athletes in their country, which happens to be a small country. As a project, we do have to respect the fact that an article subject can have national notability in a small country with a local language. BD2412T23:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not disputed that the athlete in question is among the most notable athletes in their country, which happens to be a small country. As a project, we do have to respect the fact that an article subject can have national notability in a small country with a local language. No one disputed that the subject was "among the most notable athletes" in his country because such status is irrelevant to GNG and NSPORT, and so didn't warrant a response. I don't see where our policies tell us we ought to ignore lack of SIGCOV just because a subject is "from a small country". Claims that the subject "must" be one of the most famous people in their country need to be backed up with evidence that this is the case, because we explicitly cannot assume SIGCOV has been attained by merely participating at the Olympics. Having a very brief profile and several passing mentions shouldn't be enough for an article on ANY sportsperson, regardless of their accomplishments; why should such coverage count more just because the subject is from a 12,000-person country? One major reason we rely on independent coverage as the basis for inclusion is precisely because gauging the "importance" of an achievement is so subjective and susceptible to inherent bias -- such as the assumption that every country has the same level of enthusiasm for, or assigns the same prestige to, the Olympics as Western and East Asian countries do.
More importantly, your close failed to address the fact that many of the keep !votes relied on arguments that are explicitly rejected by consensus: as pointed out numerous times in the AfD, "keep per meeting NSPORT" is invalid as that guideline does not presume notability whatsoever and only suggests which topics are likely to have SIGCOV. If editors demonstrate that the presumed SIGCOV doesn't exist, the article cannot be retained on the basis of meeting some NSPORT subcriterion.
Relisting would also give other editors a chance to assess the new Japanese sources brought up today, although I agree with wjemather that routine, passing mentions do not contribute to GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
National media coverage, even if the nation is small, meets the GNG. It would be astonishing for there to be an absence of coverage in Tuvaluan media for the country's first ever Olympic flag-bearer. That coverage is expected was alluded to in the discussion. We could avoid further back-and-forth over this if someone would just find a way to contact appropriate Tuvaluan media. BD2412T17:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say national coverage couldn't contribute to GNG; the issue is that there isn't sufficient significant coverage to meet GNG. Again, it doesn't matter that editors "expected" coverage based on his participating in the Olympics; that reasoning was explicitly rejected by multiple NSPORT RfCs where it was demonstrated not to be the case and so is invalid as a keep argument. And asking editors to personally get in contact with a country's media is way, way beyond what is expected of BEFORE or NEXIST. JoelleJay (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it goes beyond BEFORE or NEXIST is beside the point. We are talking about building an encyclopedia for the world. There is no Tuvaluan Wikipedia. To the extent that the entire country and language is covered, we are basically it. So, yes, we should go above and beyond the practices that suffice for subjects for which we would expect to easily find English intenet sources. We should do that for the same reason you would hold a door for someone whose hands are full of groceries, or try and contact the rightful owner of a check mistakenly mailed to you. Because it defines us as good people. BD2412T02:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that is a remarkably egregious example of what our WP:RGW policy is intended to prevent. So are the editors who oppose drastically loosening our notability criteria just "not good people", then? JoelleJay (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
endorse as a correct reading of consensus. The continuing failure of NSPORT AfDs to reach consensus to delete demonstrates that the supposedly consensus revisions do not, in fact, have consensus. Deletion is intentionally architected, though not implemented, that deletion requires a congruence of both policy and agreement. The close is correct. Jclemens (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The ratio of delete, redirect or merge vs. keep outcomes since the March RfC is 6:1 for sportspeople and 8.5:1 for footballers specifically. The problem most certainly isn't the existing consensus, it's bad closers refusing to implement it. Avilich (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And yet: the people showing up to the debates--and I'll note that I'm not one and never have been--do not believe the guideline applies. We're agreed that there's a disconnect here, but not in agreement about what it means. Jclemens (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They most certainly though it did apply -- only one or two invoked IAR. This is simply another of the just under 1/8.5 of cases when the discussion is incorrectly closed according to local consensus against global consensus. Avilich (talk) 01:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing what Avilich said, this is a textbook WP:CONLEVEL violation: "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." Editors who happen to be more active in a particular topic area don't get to unilaterally decide that the guideline doesn't apply; they are expected to follow the wider community consensus. –dlthewave☎02:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you !voting in DRVs on sportspeople if you're not familiar with the sportspeople guidelines or massive AfD precedents that the closers are supposed to be considering? JoelleJay (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as an involved particpant. The first AfD was no consensus. The second achieved wide participation, and a wide majority of participants were in favor of keeping the article, for valid reasons, even if some of the delete voters disagreed. Throwing it back to AfD a third time and hoping for a different result is akin to putting your fingers in your ears and screaming WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Jacona (talk) 01:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as correct reading of consensus, however that also was a supervote in the sense of editorializing vs. re-stating consensus, and I think that can get confusing so should be avoided where possible. StarMississippi01:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus the closing admin is correct that there clearly is not consensus to delete, though the keep arguments are less convincing to me (uninvolved passerby) than the delete arguments. A relist is not necessary as it was already relisted once and the discussion was well attended. Carson Wentz (talk) 01:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to endorse per closer’s rationale and comments by User:Waggers. Also a “keep” result would hold up stronger than a “no consensus” result in protecting against an endless circus of re-nominations, WP:WIKILAWYERING, and WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM, when the one thing that has been made clear in the two AFDs and this DRV is that there is not consensus to delete THIS article. Carson Wentz (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete (involved) - Closers are expected to weigh the strength of the arguments, not just count heads, no matter how high the ratio of Keep over Delete may be. Of the 15 Keep !votes, 8 should have been thrown out immediately because they either cite SPORTS/NATH without addressing SIGCOV concerns, presume some sort of inherent notability due to his status or cite procedural concerns with the nomination. The closer should have then weighed the remaining 7 Keep !votes which assert significant coverage against the source assessment table and the 8 Delete !votes which all cite a lack of significant coverage. Instead, they based their close on the numerical majority, the prominence of the subject within their home country and the fact that non-English sources are more difficult to access, none of which are based on our policies and guidelines. At the very least, consensus should be reassessed by an editor who's able to follow our policies and guidelines instead of injecting their own opinion of what makes a topic notable. –dlthewave☎04:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a suicide pact. No one is disputing that the article as written factually recounts the Olympic and other world championship participation and national achievements of this athlete. How exactly would deleting this information help the Wikipedia reader, whose interest we ultimately serve? BD2412T06:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If that's your opinion you should've argued it in the AfD, not the closing statement. It's either way an argument to avoid, as the same could be said for any topic that's verifiable but not notable. Avilich (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not participate in the discussion because I have no interest in the topic; my interest is in keeping AfD moving along by closing contentious cases that other admins avoid because they don't care for the drama. Suppose for the sake of argument that I had !voted rather than closing, and a different admin had come along and closed the discussion as "keep"; would you be satisfied with that outcome? Would you still have taken it to DRV? BD2412T19:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. This was a poor close that reads like a !vote and is being justified by a headcount. Substantially, the keep !votes did not counter the sound PaG based arguments for delete, with several even agreeing that the required significant coverage has not been found; they also leaned heavily on common fallacies about small nations, minority groups, and non-English/offline sources (in the Internet age) – as does the close – and invalid procedural complaints. The value of (possibly) meeting NATH was also strongly countered. As such, given the relative strength of the arguments, a keep consensus cannot be the correct outcome. wjematherplease leave a message...09:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course a keep consensus can be the correct outcome. There were differences of opinion throughout the discussion, and while you claim the differences were debunked, others disagreed. While Wikipedia is not a democracy, it is not an autocracy either. — Jacona (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In many years and hundreds of AfD's this is the only time I've used that, and I did so because it is valid. I believe it was right, just as you believe your opinion was and that WP:BLUDGEONing is the right course to assert your opinion is more important than that of a far greater number of editors. — Jacona (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This should never have been renominated so quickly. Now there was clearly consensus to keep. Now we're at DRV after multiple AfDs in less than a month. Can we please stop wasting time on this? Enough is enough. The fact that you disagree with consensus is not reason to overturn. You've made your point. People disagreed. Move on. Smartyllama (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I agree that some of the closing statement would have been better as a !vote, but both keep and NC were, IMO, within discretion. Hobit (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I agree with Hobit that the closer's statement was a supervote, but what is the point to the appeal? The supervote by the closer might be a reason to overturn the close to No Consensus. Duh. Anyway, the closer had reason to be annoyed with the tendentious renomination. A slice of trout, sauteed, to the closer, for lunch. A whole slightly decayed trout to the nominator. Anyway, Keep is a valid conclusion by the closer; it is only the argument that is unnecessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: I was right and I'd close it again the same way without pause, perhaps with a somewhat clearer nod to the fact that the salient points noted in my close were raised in the discussion by participants. I knew as soon as I saw the AfD that no matter how it was closed it would end up being brought here. That's why it was lingering - closers don't want this headache. BD2412T20:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one suggested the article might be a "hoax". There was just one !vote that even mentioned anything at all about the content being "verifiable" (which is completely irrelevant when the AfD is on notability grounds): Sure, the coverage may not be what we would like to see, but there is enough there to verify his accomplishments and existence. There are sources even if they are not particularly strong. You spent half of your close rationale extrapolating an irrelevant argument from one !vote--out of almost 25--while totally neglecting to address any of the deletion concerns. That is a supervote. JoelleJay (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to note that I didn't say anything about a supervote. I just felt some of what was said in the closing would have been better as a !vote. Hobit (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I'm also a participant in the discussion but I arrived there with the intention of closing it and found myself instead contributing to it. I believe the closer's rationale is sound and if I was closing the discussion instead of participating in it, would likely have made the same decision on the same basis. WaggersTALK14:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument in this discussion was that, because N states a subject is notable if it meets GNG or an SNG, that meeting a criterion in NSPORT confers notability. However, as explained by Wjemather, this is an incorrect interpretation of our guidelines: NSPORT does not confer or even presume notability, it merely indicates SIGCOV is likely to exist if the subject meets a sport-specific guideline (SSG) criterion; moreover, for the criteria in an SSG to apply at all, the article must include a source of SIGCOV. There was no consensus that any source in the article was SIGCOV, so claims of meeting NATH (which were themselves disputed) are rendered moot anyway, but even if valid that would not be sufficient reason to keep an article on its own if potential inaccessible sources have not been identified. And FWIW, NSPORT has always required its subjects meet GNG; it has never accorded notability directly. JoelleJay (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't what WP:N says. In any case this is off topic - we're supposed to be discussing the closing admin's decision, not rehashing the discussion again. WaggersTALK08:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't rehashing the discussion. Consensus in this regard was re-affirmed by the well attended WP:NSPORTS2022 RFC and subsequent review at AN. If anti-consensus !votes such as yours were given weight, that is an error that needs correcting (WP:LOCALCON). Substantially, meeting NSPORT requires more than just meeting the one of the sport-specific criteria, and NSPORT does not override GNG. wjematherplease leave a message...09:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and SNOW close The nomination was a complete violation of WP:BEFORE rule B5 and the consensus was very clear. There is not a snowball's chance in hell of this being overturned. 24.28.96.202 (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IP, your comment does not help the discussion. Rule B5 has no minimum scope, where a NC was the previous result. Beyond that, your comment doesn't address the actual basis of the DRV - which is that a conlevel violation has occurred, with Keep votes not premised on policy to make them !votes. Now they may or may not, but you need to specify how and that it is. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At least three editors have commented here without declaring that they were involved. Please note that WP:DRV says, "Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic." And yes, I'm involved as well. StAnselm (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I find Aridd's argument from the first AfD surprisingly persuasive, considering it's based on absolutely nothing but WP:IAR. I would add that I would not close this AfD if I was an admin, but instead !vote something to that effect. No amount of policy can account for the fact that representing a country in their first olympics and setting national records is obviously a big deal, even if the country is small and non-English. To @Wjemather - pleading IAR does not "illustrate just how desperate the case [is]." It illustrates that the rules can be wrong sometimes! And that's okay. casualdejekyll02:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Poor close, probably the correct end result - correct to IAR very few of the (!)votes took a clear IAR route and though there were a few actual !votes, many weren't legitimate under the current rules. The closer insufficiently considered the post NSPORTS-RfC structure in their close, as well. However. Despite being an inclusionist I have only made an IAR case myself twice in AfDs and am generally opposed to unclear IAR cases. However, that process has been made here and there, and I think a strong case for IAR can be made. IAR closes, however, should be clearly noted due to avoid incorrect precedent setting. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and reclose by somebody else. The outcome may or may not have been correct, but the closing statement by BD2412 makes clear that they meant to cast a supervote, closing the discussion in accordance with their personal preference and their (mistaken) view that the quality of the sources necessary for an article depends on what country the subject is from. This is inappropriate conduct in an administrator and should not be protected at DRV. Sandstein 07:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein: You know as well as anyone that many admins do not want to touch a discussion where the level of intransigence on contesting sides guarantees that it will wind up being taken to DRV no matter the outcome. There is no conceivable proper closure of this discussion that results in a consensus to delete, so we will merely end up wasting time. Also, as I have noted above, I have no preference with respect to this article subject at all. I do, however, have a preference that interminable discussions be closed. BD2412T15:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is certain is the last 6 !votes, who viewed and evaluated the entire discussion all voted !keep. If it had remained open, this trend would likely to have continued.Jacona (talk) 16:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A no consensus result, and then what? The article would be nominated for deletion again a week later, just like it was before. BD2412T19:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That level of persistence in re-nominating the same article would likely be viewed as disruptive, but even if it wasn't, potential re-nomination is not a consideration. We close AFDs per consensus of the discussion, not in order to prevent re-nomination within a given timeframe. wjematherplease leave a message...19:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I agree that the closer appears to have made a "supervote," but I don't think it was an unreasonable reading of the consensus. I might have concluded no consensus, but I don't see a consensus to delete. Jogurney (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse A "keep" close is a reasonable interpretation of the discussion, though I would have probably leaned toward "no consensus." I disagree with some of the closer's reasoning but support the end result. FrankAnchor19:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article is notable enough under WP:ENT. The page went through a former AFD several years ago (2016), and although I did no contributing to that version of the article, it was sloppily formatted, and not referenced well. I created a more respectable version of the article a couple days ago, adding sources, yet an administrator put a speedy delete on the article. Bronoton (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've temporarily undeleted it. While I don't know whether the new version will pass AFD, I'd not endorse a G4 of this even if the old afd had been closed yesterday, not six years ago. Just look at the diff. Overturn. —Cryptic23:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy deletion. That was not even remotely close to "substantially identical", so I endorse Jclemens recommendation the deleting admin be presented with a fish. I have no opinion on whether it would survive AfD, but whether it would or not is completely irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
