Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 July 21

21 July 2016

Mrs Denis Thatcher – Relisted. I'm doing this in the form of a second RfD and pinging all who contributed in the first to offer an updated opinion. –  Sandstein  09:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mrs Denis Thatcher (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I do not believe that there was consensus at RfD to retarget and would prefer to get this relisted to get a clearer picture or overturned to no consensus. I outlined my reasons for suggesting a relist/no-consensus close with the closer here, but did not come to an agreement. 3/6 !voters endorsed Margaret Thatcher (specifically the early political career section) as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this term, including one person who explicitly endorsed my proposed target over retargeting to Denis Thatcher#Marriages when asked. The issues over lack of context raised by the IP !voter (whose invocation of WP:COMMONNAME would imply that they also see Margaret Thatcher as the primary topic) were addressed by changes to PM Thatcher's article. Given all of this, a relist and pinging/notifying the involved editors for their views after the updates would have led to a better close instead of discarding !votes because of how they were unclear as the closer did. The quote "Mrs Denis Thatcher redirects to someone else for other Mrs Denis Thatchers see Denis Thatcher" by the closer in the linked conversation above shows that the closer may not have understood the PRIMARYTOPIC arguments in the RfD, since PM Thatcher was referred by that name by some reliable sources in her day and even now as shown by the links provided in the RfD, so that is an additional reason to bring this to DRV.-- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Relist The process-based reasons are that A) there is now information in the MT article that discusses this name. That happened late and may be enough to sway people. Also, B), it's possible that the closer missed that someone changed their mind but not their !vote, so the consensus is less clear than it might seem. It is worth noting that the closer may have missed that one of the !voter. My other reason is that I just can't get my head around the justification for the new redirect target. Maybe it is best (as it could be referring to a number of people and they are all covered in that target). I don't feel too strongly here--the final outcome isn't crazy, but I'm not sure it's really what the consensus was or what it should be now that the MT article has been updated. Hobit (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Relist Patently absurd result. I'd retarget to #Person life rather than #early political career, but this is an alternate name that has been used for someone who has an article in her own right. I have not been able to think of any circumstances where we would want to do that for anyone. There were comments that the prev. redirect was sexist; they have it upside down--to redirect to the husband when the wife is notable is what's sexist. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Relist. The close was in accordance with the consensus, but the consensus was ludicrous.—S Marshall T/C 20:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC) The only reason I don't think the outcome was utterly ludicrous is that the name could also apply to Margaret Doris Kempson, his first wife. She's doesn't have an article and so is unlikely to be what anyone is looking for, but if I squint, I can kind of see the argument. Hobit (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC) Note: The nominator of the original RfD has removed the relevant sentence from the Margaret Thatcher article and opened a discussion on the talk page on whether it should be included on the page at all, so all commentators here are invited to share your opinions there as well. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC) Endorse. I agree with the closer that the discussion shows a rough consensus of redirect to Denis Thatcher#Marriages, multiple participants supporting that, and it making the most sense. I did some editing to the target because it is an odd little section that is confusing/astonishing without clear headings. In short, Denis had a little known short wartime marriage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC) Since I chimed in on the original discussion, I'm not sure if it's okay for me to say anything here...? (I'm new to this process.) — Gorthian (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC) Yes, you are allowed to give your opinion here and I think it is helpful to say that you commented at the RFD. Bear in mind we are no longer discussing what should be done about the redirect but are reviewing whether the RFD discussion was closed by taking proper account of the views presented. Thincat (talk) 07:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC) Thank you, Thincat. — Gorthian (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC) Relist There were a lot of ins and outs here, and I for one didn't catch the article changes when/after I added my opinion. I think it should have been relisted a second time. — Gorthian (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Eden English School Btl – Relist. There's almost unanimous consensus here that this ended up with the wrong result (or, at least, a result which lacks policy-based support). The close per-se was not unreasonable given the available material, but many of the reviewers here feel that the discussants didn't dig deep enough in their research. Given that the AfD was very recent, I'm going to reopen the existing discussion rather than starting a new one. – -- RoySmith (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Eden English School Btl (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I bring my own close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eden English School Btl here for review. The argument for delete was lack of sources; the argument for keep was long-standing precedent documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I found a strong consensus for keep, but this has been challenged. It is true that no better source seems to exist online than this, but I don't think it is seriously suggested that the article is a hoax and no such school exists; if so, this photograph, with the school name on the side of the bus as well as on the building, would be a rather elaborate deception. The initial version was promotional; the article as it stood during the AfD is here. Since the AfD it has been stubbed as unsourced, then redirected to Education in Nepal, then restored and moved to Eden English Boarding High School, then once again redirected. I have restored the stub, but the choice between these different versions is a matter for normal editing and is not the issue here. The principle involved is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Secondary schools and verifiability. JohnCD (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Overturn or relist, due to procedural errors in the discussion. Note that the relevant part of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states: "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists". Sources establishing that this is a secondary school did not feature in the deletion discussion, and nor did the version of the article that was kept cite any sources. The current version also has no sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Just to acknowledge that the nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry, though I still think the nomination was a worthwhile one. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Just to clarify, this refers to the AfD nom, not the DRV nom (which I'd thought for a moment and had my head spinning). Hobit (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Yes, indeed. Sorry! Cordless Larry (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Endorse. I think it's perfectly clear that it exists and is a secondary school and therefore meets the criteria of the consensus. The AfD result was pretty unequivocal. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Can I ask what sources you are judging by, Necrothesp? It would have been helpful if sources had been discussed in the AfD. JohnCD mentions this above, but I am not sure whether it is a RS. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC) It's not a good source, certainly, but I think it's enough of a source to prove existence, as John says. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC) I rather suspect that its content is user-generated, and also note that it lists the school's website as the Wikipedia article, which does not fill me with confidence! In any case, these discussions should have taken place during the AfD. If it is relisted, we can have them properly. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC) But all the information was there for the AfD discussion and the decision was still overwhelmingly to keep! No new information has come to light undermining the AfD discussion. The closure was entirely correct. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Yes, but there was a procedural error in the discussion, because the keepers didn't take into account the need to verify the school's existence. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC) That's not really a procedural error. And contributors obviously considered its existence had been verified in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Note also that when I've searched for other Nepalese schools on Google, I have found them in lists on government websites (see Eden National Boarding School, which I sourced just now). With Eden English Boarding High School, I can't find such sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC) endorse I know we don't have agreement on school outcomes, but numerically there was no way to get to delete and the keeps had a reasonable argument (we've been doing this for years and years). NC might also have been a reasonable outcome, and I'd have endorsed that too, but keep is, IMO, more reflective of the discussion and at least the historic general opinion of Wikipedia. Hobit (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC) What about the fact that that historic general opinion of Wikipedia requires verification that the school exists, Hobit? That part of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES seems to have been ignored by the keepers in the AfD discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC) I'll admit I'd not realized there was serious doubt about its existence (the sources showing it's existence seem pretty strong, but I agree it's not impossible that they are all a hoax). I've contacted pabson via their website to see if it is a member of their organization (as far as I can tell, they don't maintain a list of members). Hobit (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Thanks, Hobit. I checked their website earlier and couldn't find a list. When you say that the sources showing its existence seem strong, can I ask which sources you mean? I only see one mentioned here, and none in the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Just the website and picture. It seems like a rather elaborate hoax if it is one, but I agree it's possible, which is why I've reached out. Hobit (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC) I haven't found a website for it. Could you provide a link if you've found one, Hobit? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC) [1] looks like a website for the school. Given that it's really easy to find, I'm guessing you've seen and and don't believe it is a site for this school. What am I missing? Hobit (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC) That's a directory of schools, which is believe is probably reliant on user-generated content, Hobit. You'll see on the right-hand side of that page that it lists the website of the school as the Wikipedia article. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC) I believe it's the effective website of the school. I agree it could be part of a hoax, though I very much doubt it. Hobit (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC) If it has been created by the school though, Hobit, then it's not an independent source, which is what WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES requires. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Lack of independent sourcing is a problem per policy. More importantly, I'm concerned this is a hoax (if there were sourcing I 100% believed but wasn't independent I'd probably be okay with the outcome). I'm waiting on a response by the oversight agency that I contacted. But I'm likely going to be off-line for a while, and it doesn't look like they are responding. So relist though if I hear back from them and they verify this isn't a hoax, I'll likely endorse again. Hobit (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC) Thanks for your efforts, Hobit. If they do reply in the affirmative, the question then is how we source the article, given that sources need to be published, but let's cross that bridge if we come to it. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC) FYI, I've heard nothing. Hobit (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC) Endorse but encourage AfD2 The consensus was absolutely clear that we should follow our usual practice, which is to to have the article. NC would not have been a reasonable close. Repeated efforts in the last few months by a few editors to changethe practice have all met with consensus to keep the current practice. By this time, its getting perhaps near to being disruptive. DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Although I disagree with the consensus, that is not the argument here, DGG. The consensus is that secondary school articles are kept if independent sources verify the school's existence. The article cites no such sources, and sources verifying that the school is a secondary school were not provided in the AfD discussion. The outcome therefore isn't in line with the consensus documented by WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC) as that was not discussed at the afd, i think the best course is to bring an afd2. This isn't to place to determine the facts of the case. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC) That's why I was hoping to get the AfD reopened, but I would be happy to start a second AfD, DGG. Should I wait for this deletion review to conclude first, though? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC) It's confusing to do the same thing two ways at the same time. I changed my !vote to "Endorse but encourage AfD2" DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC) Overturn. OUTCOMES is only an essay and merely reflects what has typically happened in previous discussions; in § Citing this page in AfD, it stresses that "[a]ll articles should be evaluated individually on their merits and their ability to conform to standard content policies such as [the verifiability policy]." SCHOOLOUTCOMES does not reflect consensus that articles about schools are always kept, only that—eliding the unsatisfied accreditation and sourcing bits—"[m]ost . . . high schools are usually kept." By its explicit instructions, it is not to be read to vitiate our verifiability policy and notability guideline, yet that is exactly what happened in this discussion. The votes citing SCHOOLOUTCOMES as trump card should have been discounted as contrary to policy, illogical, or uninformed. I also object to the notion that AFD consensus can override VERIFY and BURDEN ("Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.")—established policy—in the (kept) article. Rebbing 20:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Ooh, this is another interesting debate. (I've found several excellent ones today, for some reason). Here we have a supermajority for "keep" in the face of no decent sources. In the battle of consensus vs policy, who wins? If it had been a consensus to ignore schooloutcomes, then I think it would have to stand, because IAR is policy. But I don't think it was. It was more a consensus that the article met schooloutcomes, even though it's not at all clear that it did. Let's chicken out of having to decide. Let's just relist. This should NOT be understood as an "overturn", because the closer did close in accordance with the consensus and that's what a closer's job is to do.—S Marshall T/C 21:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Yes, I think relisting is the best option, so I have struck the first part of my previous "Overturn or relist" comment. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Weak Overturn but more importantly an Objection to the idea that a keep outcome absolutely precludes redirecting an article for which no reliable sources can be found. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES does still require existence, as others have pointed out, and this steaming pile of scraped data, operated by a "social media promoters" company, is most definitely not a reliable source to support such existence. If a bunch of people base the entirety of their keep argument on WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES despite no reliable sources available at all, I can sort of understand closing it as keep based just on the pressure of numbers, but that it isn't deleted doesn't mean it can't be redirected if there are no usable sources and thus no usable content. I don't think that actually requires overturning or relisting. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Relist I understand that the closer was in a difficult position and would have had to close this either as keep or no-consensus. I also commend the closer for bringing the close to deletion review themselves. I am going for a relist here as WP:V cannot trump WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. At least one reliable source (not user generated/self published) has to be shown which proves that the school exists. That was something which was not shown in the AfD. We have since had more discussions and realised that WP:V is important. If this is relisted, it will give participants in the AfD a chance to have a look at the verifiability angle and also look for sources. Btw, the schoolius.com source mentioned is user generated/self published and is clearly not a reliable source. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC) Relist, with no prejudice against the admin who was not given much to work with. Consensus is clear, but it's based largely on WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES which is worthless if it lets articles like this that have nothing in the way of reliable sources to continue existing. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC). Overturn - I endorse SCHOOLOUTCOMES but self-created photos do not count as verification. It seems to me that the best thing that could be done here (presumably after another AfD) would be to USERIFY the current page until the editor that wrote and took the photos can provide some independent secondary sources which show that the thing isn't a hoax. Note, I don't think it is a hoax, but believe that we do need some kind of standards for school pages, and providing something which shows it exists is a pretty low bar, given that it can even be in the local language. That's the argument I'd be using if it returned to AfD. JMWt (talk) 09:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC) Overturn the general previous outcomes are not supposed to create a super precedent or self perpetuate, they are an indication that over many previous discussions there has been a broadly inclusive consensus, so the case for deletion needs to be particularly strong. No real indication even of existence is about the strongest case possible, the keep opinions were essentially empty so can carry no weight. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 12:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC) overturn- It's bad enough that groups of enthusiasts can inflict blanket "If X is a Y, X !!!MUST!!! get an article!!!" rules on the rest of us, but if they are then not even careful enough to verify that X even exists then we have a serious problem. Reyk YO! 09:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC) Relist so that it can be determined whether or not it meets WP:V which is the issue here. While I believe it exists, that must be proved by at least one reliable reference. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

FREAKAZOiD – allow recreation while endorsing previous closures. New evidence of notability has been presented in this DRV and the rough consensus is that recreation should be allowed. – Deryck C. 14:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
FREAKAZOiD (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Allow recreation of this version based on sources provided. When the article was nominated for deletion it was in this condition only three sources. It has since been expanded to the current version in my space which is written by Prisencolin. Sources such as theScore, Yahoo! eSports, The Daily Dot and ESPN all give him significant coverage over a long period of time. These are all reliable mainstream sources. He has been signed by multiple teams and is currently with Echo Fox. In eSports, this is the definition of professional. One specific editor requested that this go through DRV. So allow recreation. Valoem talk contrib 15:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Endorse G4 speedy and salt to prevent any more similar disruption. This has already been discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FREAKAZOiD and the original deletion was upheld at DRV just a week ago. Now, Valoem got it userfied and then immediately put it back in the mainspace without doing anything except minor cosmetic changes to the CITET templates. All the "sources" currently in the article were known to the AfD and DRV participants. Valoem has not actually added any content since the article was deleted. I nominated it for G4 speedy as a re-creation of material deleted at AfD without doing anything to address the reasons for deletion, and it was indeed speedily deleted. I regard the latest userfication and DRV to be an attempted end-run around the deletion policy. Reyk YO! 15:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC) The fact Reyk endorsed a speedy highlights his bad faith in this matter. Speedy nominations of because of personal conflicts is by definition the behavior of an editor who is not here to build an encyclopedia. The sources I provided shows this is clearly notable. Please do not let our unpleasant encounters in the past affect your judgment. Valoem talk contrib 15:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Reyk also knows that the sources he references were added during the AfD. In the DRV, he advanced the curious idea that !voters should be presumed to have seen sources added to the article after their last contribution to the AfD discussion. Jclemens (talk) 05:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC) I think it's even weirder to presume they haven't. It is very common for people to do a search for sources, find a few scattered mentions here and there but nothing impressive, and vote delete. That someone later is more impressed by those sources and adds them should not create a presumption that all earlier delete votes should be discarded. That's not only dismissive and insulting, it would encourage drip-feeding crappy sources into an article just to invalidate previous votes. In this discussion, the early delete voters turned up at the DRV and endorsed the result. I assume they wouldn't do that if they actually had not encountered the new "sources" and thought the new material would have changed the outcome, so I do not think my opinion is unreasonable. Reyk YO! 06:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC) No its not, I assume if they read the sources provided we wouldn't be here. We are here because of lack of due diligence. No one has highlighted in any discussion the issues with the sources provided. Valoem talk contrib 18:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC) Comment- in addition to my first comment, I'd like to add that this DRV is just a re-argument of the original AfD. And that is not what deletion review is for. I see no attempt to argue that either the AfD deletion or the subsequent G4 speedy were wrong in any way. Reyk YO! 15:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC) This is an argument to allow recreation for a situation when sources have been provided and the subject is clearly notable. Valoem talk contrib 16:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC) allow recreation yes it was deleted and that deletion was endorsed at DRV. And yes, that was clearly the wrong outcome. We've got in-depth sources including ESPN with a 1000+ word article solely on this person, a Breitbart article (~500 words) on an incident he was at the center of, more than a dozen articles at Daily Dot that at least mention him (including some where he is the focus of the article). There is also an article on Yahoo and a number of pure-esports reliable sources. Clearly way (way) over our notability bar. Hobit (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC) So if I am adamant that I disagree with an AfD and DRV result, I am entitled to remonimate the article a week later without adding anything new to the discussion? Reyk YO! 07:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC) Good question. And that is the big issue here. If something that plainly has no sources gets kept, it would be unusual to see it renominated for deletion a week later, though not unheard of. In this case, we've got something way over the bar and it was deleted. I'd have personally preferred we wait for another source or two--they clearly will come. But the nom jumped the gun and happens to be correct--this easily meets WP:N. I have a hard time telling someone they can't create an article when it clearly meets the letter and spirit of our requirements. Hobit (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC) On the substance of the article, do you agree it meets the GNG? If not, why not? I've provided 6+ sources focused on the subject of the article. The ESPN one is in great depth. Hobit (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC) Endorse AfD. Endorse last week's DRV. Endorse G4. There is nothing here that's new since any of those. We should also stop userfying deleted pages unless the requesting user can present a reasonable plan for improving the article, to avoid this kind of time-wasting nonsense. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC) RoySmith the article already passes our standards here. It is in start state, how can we improve the article if it is delete? Valoem talk contrib 18:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC) I agree we've been here before. But I don't see how you can claim that the topic doesn't meet the GNG. We've provided (in this DRV) articles from ESPN, Breitbart and Daily Dot among others. The ESPN one is purely about the subject with 1000+ words. The others are also in depth. It's plain that we've got multiple, independent sources that cover the topic in depth. Hobit (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Help me out here, Roy. You changed your !vote in the AfD admitting that the sources were adequate to meet GNG but you didn't like the topic (feel free to correct me if you think that's an inaccurate summation of your statement). So why this sudden hardening of your stance against this particular article? Jclemens (talk) 05:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC) What I object to is dragging something back to DRV a week after it was here, with nothing substantially changed since last week. I get that you don't agree with the outcome from last week. Fine. There's lots of decisions that get made that I don't agree with. There's a ton of other work to do, move on and do something else. Wasting other people's time by arguing the same case over and over again is counterproductive. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC) So you weren't able to bring yourself to cast a delete !vote that you wanted to, because you knew it did not meet criteria for deletion, but you're OK with a result you believe to be incorrect being affirmed, just for the sake of process? I tend to take a different view: If wrong decisions--and not borderline ones, but clearly incorrect ones that don't conform to our own stated policies--are allowed to stand, the damage that can be done to the encyclopedia by misapplication of poor decisions justifies getting more eyes on the matter in an attempt to overturn a wrong WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and replace it with a policy-compliant outcome. I think Wikipedia is becoming deaf to the difference between principled opposition to incorrect results and ongoing advocacy, and I fear the attitude you express here leads to that result. Jclemens (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC) Then Roy took this "time wasting" accusation and refused to userfy another page for me. Very disappointing that to accuse others of time wasting when you know the decision was wrong. If anything is a waste to not immediately fix detected issues. If any outcome is wrong we should revisit repeatedly until it is corrected. Valoem talk contrib 18:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC) Endorse Though there is consensus to cover individual gamers, there is not to cover those as minor as this one. In judging the sourcing needed to meet GNG, we need to considerthe density of available sourcing in the field. In this case it is so high that the barrier should be interpreted much higher. DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Reviewing this at Valoem's request, The discussions at some afds have indicated to me that it is possible that I may have some prejudice from lack of understanding in the field. Decisions at AfD (and consequently, here also) can involve a value judgement about what is important as well as a consideration of the technical requirements of sourcing, so it would be fairer if I did not !vote or even comment. DGG ( talk ) 10:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC) Looks like I'm going to lose on this one, but I will admit I don't understand your argument. If an area is so popular that there are lots of articles on the topic, doesn't that mean we should be covering the topic? Isn't that the entire point of the GNG? And it's not like these aren't main-stream sources. Also I fixed a few typos in your comment, hope you don't mind Hobit (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC) DGG Do see any issues with these sources: theScore Yahoo! eSports The Daily Dot ESPN These sources alone should pass GNG. But there are many others [2] and [3]. Can you show me what type of sources you are looking for ... to pass GNG? The sources I provided give him extensive coverage, are secondary and reliable. I understand that eSports is a topic that maybe unfamiliar to many, I hoped I provided sources that it is notable. Valoem talk contrib 19:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Allow Recreation per Hobit. The level of sourcing here is clearly adequate, which suggests there is a subtle prejudice or systemic bias against non-traditional athletes. He has ongoing coverage in RS'es that cover his sport... even if that sport may be derided by some as not very sport-like. Jclemens (talk) 05:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC) Comment I !voted at DRV1.[4] It is a bad mistake to improve an article during an AFD. Many people will not notice (or care) about the change and the improved article is wide open to G4. Far better to just let it be deleted and then recreate it with new, improved, referenced content. Thincat (talk) 08:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC) I do not consider that good advice in most cases. WP policy is not to delete fixable articles. The fixed article is not liable to G4, if it is indeed fixed , and I think most admins including myself would be vey reluctant to delete as G4 during a discussion if there was any indication of improvement. On the other hand, if an article is hopelessly contaminated by promotionalism or copypaste, then WP:TNT is sometimes appropriate in order to discourage that sort of editing. And it is usually not a good idea to rewrite completely--if that is needed, then deletion does make more sense. DGG ( talk ) 14:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC) Comment, I'd like to show some sources which I posted on DGG's talk page:a few major mainstream publications which give the subject significant coverage far beyond what is required Jacob Wolf (2016-05-07). "fREAKAZOiD at DreamHack Austin". ESPN.com. Retrieved 2016-07-19. The article notes: But one of Splyce's stand-ins, former Cloud9 entry-fragger Ryan "fREAKAZOiD" Abadir, is just happy to be here. He's not competed in a tournament since the Major League Gaming Columbus major in March--leaving Cloud9 just after. But competing again, he says he's found a new hunger for the game he's been a pro in for seven years. "Since I've been around for so long, everyone's kind of saying I'm washed up," fREAKAZOiD says with a smile. "But I feel like I have a new hunger for the game. Taking that time off, just not playing, I just feel like, this new hunger. I kind of feel like a new me is going to come. I don't really know how to explain it, but that's how I feel right now. I almost didn't want to come here, but coming has made me wanna play again at the highest possible level." fREAKAZOiD isn't the only stand-in for the team. The other is popular Twitch streamer Jaryd "summit1g" Lazar. He's never played in a Counter-Strike: Global Offensive offline tournament, and he's currently the fourth biggest streamer on the Twitch platform. But despite having streaming as his income, fREAKAZOiD says he's confident that summit1g could make it as a competitive player. "He takes it serious, he wants to win," fREAKAZOiD says when asked about his fellow stand-in. "I think people get kind of confused because he's a streamer, but he loves to compete, I can tell. You can see when he's playing and how he talks and like, he goes for it. I respect that a lot about him. He really does wanna play for a top team.". This is an ESPN source which give elite players in sports and esports coverage and does not give run of the mill players coverage. Additional sources include The Daily Dot, theScore, and Yahoo! eSports. The version in my user space I am trying to restore passes WP:GNG and is acceptable as a start article. In terms of eSports a player is deemed professional when he or she is signed, same as in standard sports. This player has been signed by multiple large sponsors including Cloud9 and Echo Fox, therefore this player is professional by any means. I understand there may be bias in this field, but unless we change our policies, this person currently passes. I would recommend at least a relist, I am confident this will survive. Valoem talk contrib 13:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC) Allow Recreation per Hobit. Editor Valoem has provided 4 sources allmost entirely about the subject. Wikipedia can't afford to be without coverage of such clearly noteable sportsman. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC) Allow recreation. Valoem (talk · contribs) has presented a convincing case that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. He has also presented two articles from Mundo Deportivo that were not discussed in the AfD. That the subject, an American eSports player who is based in the United States, has received nontrivial coverage in a Spanish nationwide daily sports newspaper published in Barcelona is significant information. That the subject received a detailed profile in ESPN here strongly indicates he is notable. The ESPN article was mentioned once at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FREAKAZOiD by an editor supporting retention. Editors supporting deletion failed to explicitly discuss this very strong ESPN source. This makes the AfD discussion defective in that no one explained why the strongest source was insufficient to establish notability.. The Daily Dot repeatedly covered the subject over a period of a year, demonstrating persistent coverage: "FREAKAZOID's message to bitter fans who lost bets on him: 'F**k you'" – 8 July 2015 "Freakazoid docked a month's pay after verbally sparring with S1mple" – 9 February 2016 "Cloud9 remove fREAKAZOiD from its Counter-Strike roster" – 13 April 2016 "fREAKAZOiD signs with Echo Fox" – 31 May 2016 Read together, these The Daily Dot articles provide substantial biographical coverage about the subject. Example from the 31 May 2016 article: FREAKAZOiD was also seen playing together with Splyce at DreamHack Austin. Playing his customary role as the team’s entry-fragger, he averaged a rating of 1.00 across the three maps the team played before being eliminated by Counter Logic Gaming in the group’s deciding match. ... FREAKAZOiD was part of Cloud9’s impressive run of tournaments in the summer of 2015. He was considered a perfect fit with seangares' style of leadership, as he would follow the other players' orders to a tee. This would often come at the cost of his own life, as he'd sacrifice himself to to relay important information, like his opponent's map position. The subject has also received coverage in this article from Breitbart and this article from Yahoo! Sports. He easily passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 05:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC) Allow recreation given new sources, especially the Spanish language ones. The G4 was technically correct, but the new sources add enough new information and support for notability to allow recreation. If someone disagrees that GNG still isn't, met, they can AfD it. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.