1994–95 Cruz Azul season – Relist. There's clear agreement here that the close was incorrect. Those who argued to endorse mostly talked about how wikiproject notification is not a requirement, but that isn't the only issue here; there's also the question of how much a batch of AfDs submitted together should influence each other.
Beyond the basic decision to void the close, it's less clear if relisting or just overturning to No Consensus is the right way forward; opinion is about split on those and I don't see any killer arguments one way or the other. My general opinion is that it's usually better send things back to AfD, where the merits of the article can be debated in isolation from the procedural questions, so that's what I'm going to do. I am sensitive to the fact that this has been discussed to death already, but I'm still going to go with the relist option. -- RoySmith(talk) 18:20, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Restore back to AfD I don't understand the close so soon after being returned after a DRV. Govvy (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So soon – it was open for the standard 7 day period after relisting. – Joe (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from closer. I thought there was a pretty obvious rough consensus here, especially read in concert with Articles for deletion/1994–95 Club Puebla season, Articles for deletion/1994–95 Tigres UANL season, & Articles for deletion/1994–95 Toros Neza season. Those discussion were virtually identical. The only thing that sets this one apart was a keep !vote from Govvy, which was not particularly strong, and still left the tally 2–1 in favour of deletion. Nfitz's primary objection seems to be that he didn't notice the relisted AfD, but as I have explained on my talk page, the standard procedure after a relist was followed. A third relist would be counter to our usual practice at AfD and given that this article has already been under discussion for more than two months (at AfD, ANI, DRV, AfD again, now DRV again), anyone who wants to make the case for keeping the article has had ample opportunity to do so. – Joe (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion sorting and WikiProject tracking pages are optional and, as you say, it was listed there three days before the close. The consensus in this discussion stands alone, but it would be absurd for me not also have in mind the three near-identical discussions that I closed minutes before. There were no procedural errors here; your argument above for keep sounds sensible to me, as someone with no expertise in this area, but you had three weeks in which to put forward and didn't do so. – Joe (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you meant 3 days, not 3 weeks - but perhaps I'm missing something (ah, yes 3 weeks with original period). Should I have spent more time at Wikipedia, and less time watching the World Cup ... yes ... uh no ... uh yes ... no ... hmm. Nfitz (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus there is clearly not consensus to delete, particularly after the last relist/DRV (with one valid vote on each side). Further, the closer is basing the close on other AFDs, where the merits of this article need to be decided based on this AFD only. I oppose relisting as it was already relisted twice with no signs of consensus forming. FrankAnchor 19:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Consensus was reasonably clear to me. Listing at deletion sorting/notifying of wikiprojects/etc. is not a required part of the deletion process. Nothing in the nomination convinces me that this is anything other than an impermissible attempt to get a second (or perhaps a third or fourth) bite at the cherry because the AFD didn't go your way. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus - Here we go again. This one needs to be decoupled from the other AFDs that were closed as delete. When viewing this one separately, there is no consensus, and no reason for another relist. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, not because there was anything wrong with the close, but because this has been a two month saga and it's time to find final consensus so we can move forward. To do that, we need more input. Note, absolutely involved as closer of the first series, but don't think that's necessarily relevant. StarMississippi 17:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 20:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - let it run for another week, no harm. GiantSnowman 20:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note, that in the Santos Laguna AFD, the article has been improved by multiple editors and is heading to a keep, partially based on WP:HEY. There's no fundamental difference between the notability of the Santos Laguna and Cruz Azul seasons. If anything Cruz Azul's season was more significant, advancing to the play-off final, leading to the continental championship that they won. Nfitz (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist or overturn to no consensus - This was closed without sufficient input after reopening. Jogurney (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Overturn to No Consensus or Relist. Numerically there are three delete votes and three keep votes, so numerically it should be NC but WP:CONSENSUS should be determined by the strength of the arguments. One keep voter is now indefinitely blocked (with double votes striked), another IP was also block-evading as per User talk:2806:108E:24:B52A:D1E:13B8:E16F:4B0E, whereas the deleting nominator is topic-banned. Giving those votes less or no weight, there are otherwise two delete votes and one keep vote. I don't think the keep vote is especially strong, but the delete side, which raises valid points of WP:SIGCOV, might be slightly stronger than the keep side, but insufficient for a delete close. Therefore, IMHO an overturn to no consensus or a relist to gain more participation are reasonable. VickKiang(talk) 05:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus The AfD discussion is a mess, and probably irredeemably so. I am not sure how to treat contributions from the banned users, but what we have is a brief discussion about the quality of the sourcing (not that sources do not exist), with keep voters suggesting during the relisted period that the sources are from a pre-internet era (and would largely be composed of match reports). Neither of these keep statements is a reason to necessarily keep an article, but there is, or ought to be, the weight of WP:NSEASONS accorded to these statements, which suggests that "individual season articles for top-level professional teams are highly likely to meet Wikipedia notability requirement." (This guideline was also indirectly referenced in GiantSnowman's delete comment). --Enos733 (talk) 05:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. No rule says that you have to canvass WikiProject Sports about everything sports-related. So there was no procedural error here.—S MarshallT/C 15:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
