Original AfD in January 2023 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristiano Ronaldo jr) came to the conclusion that the article should be redirected. Since then, I had improved the page and published it, but it was suggested that it be merged with Cristiano Ronaldo. Besides the nomination for merging, the discussion had received three opposes and one support, but was closed as a result of the original AfD from January. With the article in its current state clearly not having a clear consensus on its notability, I feel it is worth a review. Davidlofgren1996 (talk)
Speedy overturn to no consensus The closer of the merge discussion willfully ignored a lack of consensus to merge by citing a months-old AFD. Further, this AFD was incorrectly withdrawn and redirected after less than 14 hours. That can not be taken as consensus since any potential keep votes were deprived of over six days of voting time (and two redirect votes is nowhere near a WP:SNOW close). Even if there was broad consensus to redirect in January, Consensus can change. And it’s clear that there is now support to allow a standalone article based on newer sourcing. Relisting is a viable option as well, though my first choice is an overturn to NC. FrankAnchor 18:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse or Relist I think the people here are missing the point, The article was merged by AFD because of no notability (WP:INHERIT) not because of lack of sources or it needs improvement, the more of sources it doesn't change it status, Cristiano Ronaldo Jr. is not a professional footballer yet, he is 13 years old and he has been playing for juniors teams and that fails the guidelines in WP:ATHLETE, There are many sources talking about him because he is son of one of Cristiano Ronaldo one of the most famous football players in the world not because his career, so it clearly a WP:BIORELATED article. Therefore, Even if there were problems in the AFD; the main problem of the article can't be overlooked. --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 20:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Start a new AfD The first AfD was poorly attended, there's been drama over what to do here, the merge discussion was probably closed correctly but was against consensus... undo the redirect and list it at AfD again. This needs discussion, not bureaucracy. SportingFlyerT·C 21:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
EndorseWP:MINNOWUser:Shushugah for the INVOLVED AfD close. Consider the AfD withdrawn. Consensus was to redirect (but that was long ago). If further discussion is desired, do so at Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo. As no deletion has occurred, and deletion is not on the table, it is inappropriate to continue at AfD, and beyond reviewing the proper close of an AfD, this has no business at DRV. Structurism discussions belong on article talk pages SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The two discussions here prove nothing. Three people, drawn from one sample of the community, think the article should be redirected. From a different sample of the community, three people think it shouldn't be merged and two people think it should. The second set of people have no more authority then the first set here, and if anything have less authority due to WP:CONLEVEL. In any case, SportingFlyer is right above that what we really need is substantive discussion, mot meta-discussion, so Relist at AfD. * Pppery *it has begun... 03:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The two discussions, the January 2023 AfD (redirect) and the August 2023 merge proposal (contested and improperly closed) prove one thing very clearly: There is no case for deletion.
It therefore doesn’t belong at AfD. Resume the merge proposal on the talk page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We really need is substantive discussion, mot meta-discussion the only meta-discussion we had so far, was actually the Afd from january bcause of it was at least transcluded into multiple wikiprojects by uninvolved parties, later got some support and had no single oppose, what is now even already acknowlged here by couple userscl[1],endorse. Meanwhile the recent one even was not RFC, as people did not wait to open that RFC to spread more possible participants. Article on cristianinho has too few pagewatchers to we could reach proper discussion with uninvolvded parties so talk page should be eventually transcluded to Cristiano Ronaldo Senior whih would be more proper place (+2000 pagewatchers). I am not sure what people which endorse AfD ask to create new article about mergre, in such case there should be discussion about Template:Split on the Cristiano Ronaldo page. 13 references is not much, article about Cristiano Ronaldo can very easy cover a lot of referenes about privacy life (or that is evidence about not trivial material related to Cristianinho "career"), we can talk about it at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion which is part of Template:Wikipedia community, and compare coverage with other DraftsDawid2009 (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that there really is any such need. While the subject may be a child, there are no children protection or other BLP issues. That said, I note no ongoing coverage, and my belief that the child’s article should be redirected. The problem is that AfD is not good at non-deletion nominations. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: After reading more your comments, and policies which you linked (thanks, BTW) at other DR, I changed point and can support revert redirect but just redirect with absoluetly neutral wp:edit summary that still there are doubts about notablity of the subject by many users, not revert as result of DR that AfD finished as withdrawn and concluded that disussion about mergre is pointless so. In contrast, not denied point about Wikipedia:Deletion by redirectionIf local consensus cannot be reached, take it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and achieve consensus rather than unilaterally taking action. I also believe there are two possible places where we could talk about: "Talk page about Cristiano Ronaldo Senior with transcluded section to wp:wikiproject mergre or new AfD, both should be not controversial if we can ping many users who are interested to discuss football players notablity, though perhaps AfD could do longer wheel process. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pppery, (tangential question, feel free to ignore, it is just genuine surprise), how does a set of five users has less authority than a previous set of three users? Three users establishes a comunity consensus not possible to override by five? Note that I agree that even adding up to eight users that is a very very small sample. - Nabla (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the close of the original nomination. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Approve submission of draft for reviewRobert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be no real likelihood of the article being deleted, so listing at AFD would be inappropriate. The January AFD outcome was appropriate and I endorse it. The discussion on whether redirect is still appropriate can be carried on at the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RestoreThis edit is flat-out wrong: the mere fact an AfD ended in a Redirect closure doesn't prevent all attempts at recreating the article without a listing at DRV. The two versions are not remotely comparable, this is the version listed at AfD, and this is the recreation. The AfD was sparsely attended and closed early by the nominator, which in itself would make the result non-binding. Given that there is clearly opposition to the redirect (as could be seen from the recent merge discussion), anybody who thinks the article should remain a redirect should start a new AfD instead of unilaterally redirecting. It is fine to start an AfD if you think an article should be redirected. Hut 8.5 17:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
anybody who thinks the article should remain a redirect should start a new AfD - anyone who thinks that article should be mergred and delte also can also make split nomination at Cristian Ronaldo Senior talk page before this deletion review will be closed, with good faith (and belief there is not much chance to split article about Cristiano Ronaldo's privacy life when are arguments about not notablity of Cristianinho), especially that article on Cristianinho was several times shorter than this discussion/review and such drafts. If we can so long talk here about that then why we can not copy paste content of former article to talk:Cristiano Ronaldo (he has more pagewatchers than AfD) and settle this as properly as it possible? - that's all, Dunno what do with the redirect (revert or not - I could remain ambivalent) but I completly disagree with is clearly opposition to the redirect, Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo Jr. is page which is pagewatched by microscopic fraction of percentage community which perhaps has perhaps inclusionist views about football players, on th contary Cristian Ronaldo page and other metadiscussions have a lot of. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is undeniably opposition to the redirect. Somebody proposed redirecting it and there was opposition. It might be that the article's existence isn't in line with community consensus, but there is most definitely opposition to the redirect. If there is a debate about whether the article should exist then the best thing to do is to have a discussion at AfD or a similar venue, rather than blindly redirecting it or even having a discussion on an obscure talk page nobody reads. And there hasn't been a meaningful discussion about this article's existence at AfD, since the prior AfD was withdrawn quickly by the nominator. Hut 8.5 10:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse or relist/create new metadiscussion, Per Ibrahim, see also comment of admin @Amakuru:hererestoring redirect; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristiano Ronaldo jr. Fairly nothing particuraly changed since this and it was two months ago. Usage of some references were misrepresended, for example the guardian source absolutetly did not mention Cristianinho but just gradfather os Cristiano Senior, this Portoguese is gossip material that father of Cristianinho do not let him to have phone on his own - not material for encyclopedia, few others are focussed wheather cristianinho eat chips and drink cola or not etc. - no encyclopedic context). There was not consensus for mergre but there was not consensus against either and fairly thre was earlier consnsus to delte (not so long time before Amakuru action). I also agree with User:Nabla. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOCONSENSUS, the default step after there is no consensus to take an action is to not take that action. In this case, the proper action is to not merge the page when there is clearly not consensus for merging. The fact that there was a prior AFD that was (improperly) closed as merge is irrelevant, particularly considering the current version of this page is not even remotely close to the version that was redirected over seven months ago (refer to links provided by Hut 8.5). FrankAnchor 18:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I boldly restored the redirect on this, per the original AFD outcome, but I was then reverted. And I didn't pursue it, because the rewritten page had been around quite a while and it's probably correct that an AFD "redirect" decision doesn't tie everyone's hand in perpetuity. So the original January AFD was fine, no need to overturn that, and probably discussion can continue on the validity of the new page. Personally I don't think an article on CR7 junior is warranted, per WP:NOTINHERITED etc. Sure, he has coverage in reliable sources, but so do many children of celebrities; the question is whether he warrants a page in his own right, and I don't think he does. So if this eventually comes around to a new AFD then I'd vote "delete". — Amakuru (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the 28 August 2023 version, it has 13 sources and I reviewed the first three. The first three are non-independent sources. There could be an argument that the sources are not suitable sources for Wikipedia, and there is nothing worth merging, and so it should be “delete and redirect”. However, that argument has not been made at AfD, let alone has been demonstrated to be a consensus. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. I don't think it's good practice for the nominator to close in a way that supports their view when this is not a snowball result - and this one isn't. The nom acted too quickly, jumped the gun and so this should be given some more time, a relist, and then, unless it is clearly a snowball case, should be closed by a non-involved party. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment (I voted to redirect at the merge discussion) Are we really discussing having an article on a 13 year old kid that just goes along with the family? Well.. given we do... The AfD was a unfortunate close, you can't withraw AND conclude in favor of your nomination, so I deem any conclusion (but not the individual opinions) as invalid. As the closing of the merge discussion is based on a invalid AfD conclusion, itself can not be valid (again, the opinions are valid, and the close should be considered in good faith). So there is nothing here to be seen here! We currently have a redirect, if anyone wants to turn it in to an article, they may. If anyone does not like that let the process proceed. Go to AfD, start a merge discussion, whatever, but let it run, at least, it's normal time. - Nabla (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nabla. If I come across a merge discussion for Christiano Junior, I will surely !vote “merge” or simply “redirect”. The spinout is a rush of coverage on a cute kid in a brief period that has not continued. However, the AfD was not a consensus to do that, and cannot be heavy handedly used to force the redirect in the face of opposition. Do it properly. Don’t do it direct from DRV; DRV is a process review forum. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The January AfD was not closed as redirect. It was withdrawn, and I have updated the article talk page to say that. Withdrawn means nothing happened in an AfD--that is, the AfD is not a basis for future action. The AfD was not closed as redirect, nor would it have been logical to do so based on the state of the discussion at the time it was closed. I'm surprised no one made this change before, as the change should have altered the course of the discussion. Jclemens (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was withdrawn, yes, but with a close by the original proposer as "Redirect". Now that may be wildly out of process, and you can challenge IT belatedly at this DRV if you see fit, but it was closed that way and the article was then redirected, making the result a fait accompli. To interpret this any other way would be IMHO unfair to the two editors who contributed to the discussion and voted to redirect. The whims of the nominator don't invalidate their votes. — Amakuru (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I've reverted and warned you for disruptive editing. The "close" was never a valid DRV close, and all I have done is correct the characterization. We do not put errors back into Wikipedia just because it's been months between when they occurred and when they were noticed. No one is saying the article wasn't redirected; it clearly was. The redirection was never part of any valid AfD closure ever. It's easy to AGF that the original participants didn't understand the error, and to AGF that later editors took the talk page AfD closure notice at face value in dealing with the future possibility of article vs. redirect. By correcting the talk page notice, this prevents future harm by correcting what appears to have been a simple, yet undisputed, error. Jclemens (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens, please read "you are not assuming good faith" at Wikipedia:Don't link to WP:AGF, and regardless of WP:Common Sense, you now made technical mess for uninvolved user which has to close DV. Technically closer of DR should do that, not someone who say in dealing with the future possibility vs. redirect, you seems agreed by nothing happened with Nabla, Amakuru and some other users but you just accused Amakuru for disruptive editing, despite fact there was no somethng like edit war or revert, " revert discuss cyrcle matter etc. here". Dawid2009 (talk) 05:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC) You seems to know what is going on but there is not difference beetwen admin and non admin regular in that context Dawid2009 (talk) 05:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [reply]
What Jclemens said. There's exactly two possible results of an AFD closed by its nominator fourteen hours after they opened it: "an administrator speedy deleted it" (which didn't happen here) and "this afd had no result at all, and maybe someone edited the page after" (which did). Arguments that those later edits have the force of an actual afd consensus have no validity at all, and we don't have anything to do here except maybe to formally overturn and reclose that afd as "withdrawn" and nothing else if we've really got to make that clear. —Cryptic 12:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Withdrawn by nominator as uncontroverisial redirect at the time but as wrong close what was acknowlaged nine months later at DR - I am deeply involved but I believe it would be bit more neutral tagging, see also: WP:Delete or merge: When discussions end in "no consensus", the dispute goes unresolved, and both sides of the dispute feel as though the other side is in the wrong., and additionally (though there was no AfD today): Wikipedia:AfD and mergers: If there is substantial discussion of merging, the closing admin may make a recommendation in the closing rationale.. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This didn't end in no consensus. It didn't end in anything at all. Shushugah started a discussion, then aborted it. That's not a discussion where the participants couldn't come to an agreement (which would have been a no-consensus result). Anyone's free to redirect the article, or merge it, or unredirect it, or start a discussion to redirect or merge or unredirect it, or to start a new afd. None of that requires DRV's intervention, and none of that is affected at all by what happened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristiano Ronaldo jr, except to the very limited extent that three people thought the page should be redirected and went ahead and did so before anybody had a chance to argue against it. Anyone who says differently is very deeply mistaken. —Cryptic 21:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. I don't see why this can't just continue at AfD, especially now that more people are watching it.
restore/allow recreation all without prejudice against a future AfD. A new article is a fine reason to allow a new discussion. And a bad/weird close is another fine reason. We've got both it seems. Hobit (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per Hut 8.5. The original redirection was a BOLD withdraw and WP:BLAR (or BLAR-and-moot), not a full AFD consensus, and the new article is not sufficiently similar for G4, not anywhere close to being so, so even if we assume a much broader latitude for speedy re-redirection vs speedy re-deletes this would be an overturn/vacate or list at AfD. Being as lazy as I am, I would much prefer to just pretend the re-redirection never happened (vacate). I would offer WP:CHIPS for everyone receiving fish here, don't bankrupt me please, ta. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Endorse close and I recommend speedy termination of this review. I opposed the close in the first deletion review but the community has spoken and I accept that review and Drmies’ decision to delete the article.
This was the most complicated and troubled AfD I’ve encountered since my return from a long wikibreak last fall. I was an admin myself before that break and I don’t envy the task Drmies took on. The thrice-relisted AfD hung around for perhaps a day after the deadline to close - no other admin wanted to touch it.
I’ll also note that my !vote in the AfD was “delete and merge” to the author’s article; it was not “keep”. So even had my talk page comments been seen, I think the article would’ve still been deleted - perhaps just also merged.
pinging @ Robert McClenon as an active, neutral participant in the last DRV who looked at both sides of the issue both there and at the WP:ANI discussion of the DRV.
