- 1994–95 Club Puebla season (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
- 1994–95 Cruz Azul season (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
- 1994–95 Tigres UANL season (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
- 1994–95 Toros Neza season (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
- 1994–95 Santos Laguna season (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I created the article with 7 sources, 1 user reviewed my article, then another user nominated my article with a false argument that was unsourced. I explained source by source, only another user supported the delete nomination, I explained to him the article is properly sourced, then, the user who nominated my article falsely alleged a violation of copyrights. I explained to him that RSSSF clearly states that info can be used freely if acknowledgments are included. Everybody uses RSSSF as source and I've always included on my articles other sources from journals, publishers, etc. I don't get why they deleted my articles if those had sources included properly. Those articles meet NSEASONS requirements. Also, nomination is flawed, biased, and with false claims of being unsourced even when everybody who reads the article can verify it that is properly sourced with several references. I wrote 200 articles since three years ago and I've never received this false-based nominations by the same user who is clearly not acting in good faith. He nominated to delete my 10 articles with false claims of being unsourced and not reaching any consensus with the same user voting in every AfD. It is unbelievable consensus against my articles is 1-0 in the 10 Afd discussions. The decision to delete was inconsistent with the treatment of the articles for all other NSEASONS and as such appears capricious in nature. The article should be returned to published status without delay.HugoAcosta9 (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you did not supply all sources. Only after the nomination you started adding sources for the matches. Effectively trying to whitewash earlier copyvio-infringements. And AfD is about the arguments, not a vote. The Banner talk 14:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As everyone can read the user is nominating in a bad and capricious faith, today he is nominating other 5 articles with false claims about being unsourced those articles I wrote since three years ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1981–82 Atlético Madrid season, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1982–83 Atlético Madrid season, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1984–85 Atlético Madrid season, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1985–86 Real Madrid CF season, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1986–87 Real Madrid CF season . Now, you can expect the same user subject B he will be the ONLY user to vote against my 5 articles as he did to my previous 10 artciles, then, consensus is reached according to an administrator and he continues to delete my 5 articles. It is clearly a conspiration against Mexican editors a 1-0 voting in AfD with two weeks of discussion. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse my own close, creator bludgeoning and multiple voting was the only input to keep. DRV is not to re-litigate the same arguments as at AfD. Star Mississippi 15:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- See everyone the 1-0 voting is enough in Apartheid to censor articles. This is clearly harassment by an user who nominates with falsely claims, another user who vote, two weeks of discussion with nobody supports the Apartheid and then the delete of 200 articles. That's the new wikipedia, Ladies and Gentlemen Apartpedia. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Are you willing to go that low out of spite? The Banner talk 16:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The pattern is the same for the 15 articles you are nominating: 1.You falsely claim my 200 articles are unsourced, you are not reading them you just are lying. 2. The same user always -who also did not read the article- votes supporting your false based claims. 3. The article is in a two weeeks discussion, nobody supports the 1 single vote to deletion then, is deleted even is properly sourced, even the deletion is not according to the truth because a. never read the article to corroborate your false claims. b. Don't know nothing about football. c.Never read the truth in the AfD. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @HugoAcosta9 please be mindful of how you address other editors. Star Mississippi 17:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I have seen opinions from me (as nominator) and GiantSnowman for removal and just one opinion to keep, from the original author. And every time you responds it is on "the article is unsourced" while I never said that in my nominations. If I am rude: WP:CIR. The Banner talk 18:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You did not read the 18 articles you have nominated. You expand the span to AfD to two weeks you only gather 1 vote in favor and then Mississippi not reading the 5 artciles not knowing the truth deleted the 5 and you are nominating the other 200. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse if this is an appeal of the closures. Appellant is a vexatious litigant and is making personal attacks against some of the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Another one who did not read the 5 articles, neither the AfD and of course not knowing the truth. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is a content forum, but there are issues about the conduct of the appellant. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Another one who did not read the 5 articles, neither the AfD, of course not knowing the truth. I went to The Board. Racism_against_a_200-articles-Mexican-editor . HugoAcosta9 (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no Board. I repeat what I said above, please be mindful of how you address fellow editors as you're heading for a block. Star Mississippi 18:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse but allow re-creation - Due to lack of participation, these should all be soft deletions. I'm quite certain there is significat coverage in reliable sources on many if not all of these seasons. Someone just has to put in the work. However, the close was a correct reading of the consensus. Jogurney (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - closure was a correct reading of consensus, albeit in a discussion with low participation. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- 1 vote from giantsnowman who did not read the 5 articles and only follow a false claim is not a consensus, there is not a single evidence of the false claims of the banner. Unbelievable. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussion at ANI (permalink) is relevant. —Cryptic 20:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- where @Bbb23 has indefinitely blocked (thank you). Discussion can now hopefully continue on merit and without baseless allegations. Star Mississippi 20:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As the nominator is now indefinitely blocked, I would say speedy close. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow recreation as none of the articles received more than one "delete" vote other than the nom. These articles can then be sent to AFD a second time if deemed necessary, where they can stand or fall on their merits. Without the creator's rhetoric, all of these would be a textbook case of soft delete and can still be treated as such. I disagree with User:Stifle's assessment of a speedy close, as the DRV request was made before User:HugoAcosta9's block was implemented. Frank Anchor 14:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Relist The closes correctly reflect the discussions at AfD, which is all that is up for review here. WP:REFUND is available when AfDs have little or no participation other than the nominator . Updated after seeing Star Mississippi comments. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:34, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Also call for speedy close, if the op hadn't jumped straight to insults none of this would have been necessary. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated comment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Closer comment while I still stand by my own close, given the way the broader picture shook out as far as the nominations, I have zero issue if these are relisted for broader input. I'm not familiar enough with soccer teams to know whether any of these are notable on their face.Star Mississippi 13:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow recreation/relist the now-blocked OP's over-the-top behavior was sufficiently distracting that it masked the very low quality of these AfD nominations by an editor who is now on the verge of being topic-banned from the AfD process. Now that it has been established that the editor who nominated these articles for deletion did absolutely zero due diligence, we need to take a more serious look at these articles. Also, there is no basis for a speedy close. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist these, and also WP:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Correcaminos UAT season and WP:Articles for deletion/1994–95 C.D. Veracruz season that were similarly closed by User:Liz. While the closes were reasonable, even the closer (of the first five), notes in one of them that they were a soft delete, and doesn't oppose relisting. Also, I believe that the close didn't fully weight the policy-based arguments of the one objector, and overweighted the sole Delete vote, that conceded that "these kind of articles are notable". Not to mentioned that two of the three contributors have, or about to be, blocked and topic banned. I fully understand why the AFDs were closed the way they were. One one hand, the OP is correct procedurally - but their verbal abuse and actions were unacceptable. Nfitz (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, not all the discussions were closed. Given further time, a consensus to keep formed - for example, see WP:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Club América season. Nfitz (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Noting one more: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989–90 Real Madrid CF season closed as a speedy keep. Star Mississippi 23:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think in the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1994–95 C.D. Veracruz season, the fact that the only editor arguing that the article should be kept had just been indefinitely blocked influenced me to close a discussion that I ordinarily would have relisted a second time. That's an oversight on my part but, frankly, the way things are in AFD right now, I doubt that another week of open discussion on this article would have resulted in more participation. There are a few editors (bless their hearts) who seek out AFDs that have been relisted several times to review the articles and discussions and offer an opinion but most editors who participate in AFDs tend to focus on those articles that are newly nominated. What do you do when an AFD discussion has been relisted 3 times and the only editor who has participated in the discussion is the nominator? This situation is unfortunately common in the AFD area these days.
- But to get back to these articles, I'm fine with reverting both closures and relisting the discussions if the consensus is that this move is appropriate. These AFDs would all benefit from more attention. Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist: I don't think there's much of an argument that the closes violated settled procedure; plainly they didn't. But I think we can agree now that they were bad outcomes, and that the nominations listed above were very likely just as tainted and pointy as the other similar AfD cases The Banner filed, all of which have closed
(or will soon do) as overwhelming Keeps. We have two choices here: to do the right thing and restore the articles -- not simply relist the AfDs -- or just wash our hands of The Banner's now-obvious bad faith and worse judgment (and for which he's about to be community tbanned from the AfD process generally). That the community needs to do a better job at AfD has been manifest for years now, and that's a problem beyond the scope of this DRV. Correcting this error is within our grasp, and it should be done without further delay. Ravenswing 02:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist per Ravenswing. The entire mess was part of an interpersonal dispute between two editors, and probably needs some fresh eyes to get more comments and remove the taint caused by low participation and high emotion. --Jayron32 15:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist per Ravenswing. Plus, with only a single editor supporting deletion, no consensus or relisting would have been more appropriate. Given the drama that these AfDs have generated, there will likely be more activity with a relisting, and consensus could be more accurately evaluated. Rlendog (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist per the immediately above, now that teh dramaz have sorted themselves out. Jclemens (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse and allow recreation Discussions were closed reasonably based on the amount of information then available, with one non-banned editor for deletion and none against. Avilich (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion as soft delete given the low participation and restore upon request of any non-blocked editor. No prejudice against a speedy renomination for deletion by any non-blocked editor, but the original AfD was so much of a trainwreck on both sides it's probably best to just start over with a fresh one if we want to go that route. Smartyllama (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The ANI case has now ended - could someone close this? Nfitz (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion but allow re-creation. The AfD discussions were relatively low participation, but I do see rough consensus to delete in them. We're a bit past the point of re-listing given the current situation. That being said, I don't think that the relatively low participation is enough to bar re-creation with additional sources being used. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
|
