Temporarily undeleted for deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article had good participation. There was some disagreement about the definition of the word "Multiple. However, Multiple means two in every dictionary. The administrator and the delete !voters have demanded more than two. Our own policy in WP:N says There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. In any event, the administrator has cast a WP:SUPERVOTE rather than interpreting WP:CONSENSUS. 4 editors argued for keeping the article and 3 4 argued for deletion. This is very clearly a no consensus and the default in that case is Keep. The article can be renominated multiple times. The XfD closer was asked but did not wish to revisit the close. Lightburst (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you voting in your own nomination? (Especially when you did not count the AfD nominator in your above vote count...)
To reiterate what I said on my talk page, I specifically didn't close this as "no consensus" on the basis of vote counting, as you suggest. There were several "keep" responses that did not consider the weight of each source as was explained at length later in the nomination. Early voters were invited to consider this information and did not. The "delete" responses showed a greater grasp of what constitutes an independent source. The above listed sources are sufficiently addressed in the discussion. I think the closure and its rationale are sound but open to feedback. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 19:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: I am asking that the close be overturned. I removed the bold. Reasonable editors disagreed on the AfD, but as the XfD closer you should apply the policy of no consensus. Additionally, I miscounted because Yosemiter did not !vote normally. In any event 4-4 is still a push and the close should be overturned. Lightburst (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I miscounted because Yosemiter did not !vote normally: Which is reason to read the content of arguments, not merely count !votes.—Bagumba (talk) 05:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. Four different editors said it passed the general notability guidelines based on those sources. And it clearly says "multiple", which is defined as more than one, so if you have two or more reliable sources giving what people consider significant coverage then it counts. The closing administrator is suppose to gauge consensus not cast a supervote. There was no consensus to delete. DreamFocus 20:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relist The basic argument is that it fail NSPORTS, as he never played a professional game. This can be overcome by sufficient coverage, but two minimal sources is insufficient. Thecloser wasright, we don't count courses but list them, but a more appropriate discussion is needed. DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, if editors feel there are more references to discuss, or Endorse. I agree with the closer that keep !voters did not argue their point well enough for GNG (no surprise there though, I !voted delete). I did repeatedly ping editors to further validate their keep !votes after I pointed out one of the two sources they were claiming was non-routine sports coverage was actually an oddity caused by the archiving of a defunct website that was routine. They had several days and have all been editing since then, but there was no rebuttal. (Note: the sources listed by Lightburst here don't add further non-routine coverage IMO. Waco: already discussed in AfD, Dallas Morning News 1: routine injury report, Dallas Morning News 2: short statement/mention about Baylor award winners, Red Cup: interview, NBC Sports: routine award of the week. But if that is enough to re-open and discuss further with more participation, then that is acceptable too.)
DGG The subject absolutely fails NSPORTS, specifically WP:NHOOPS and WP:NCOLLATH, by not playing in one of the well covered leagues (3 games in second tier pro league, finished the season in a lower league, and now in low-pro/semipro league) and no major or national college awards (best non-starting player in a conference is something, but not major in any form). Yosemiter (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, and I would plan to !vote delete in the subsequent discussion, but since the discussion in the afd made surprisingly little mention of this, the fairest thing is not to argue it here, but to reopen it at afd. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
EndorseDream Focus, closing admins don't count votes. Four different editors made weak arguments to keep and the delete arguments by me, Yosemiter, and Bagumba were stronger. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Well within closer's discretion. The case wasn't absolutely clear-cut, and the arguments reflected that. Could've gone a couple different ways, but "delete on strength of arguments" is a reasonable outcome. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 04:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse on the strength of the post-relist !votes being deletes and not being rebutted. The keeps were WP:VAGUEWAVEs at GNG, and arguments did not elaborate on how significant coverage was met, just comments that a count of 2 sources minimally meets the "multiple" source criteria.—Bagumba (talk) 05:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- Post relist the discussion was unanimous to delete. Why relist at all if no amount of subsequent discussion can alter the outcome? Anyway, all the arguing about "is two sources multiple or not" and keep vote v delete vote snout counting obscures the content of both the sources and the !votes, both of which strongly indicate deleting was the correct decision. ReykYO! 11:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse with a few comments:
Multiple means at least two. If it meant that two sources would always suffice, it would say so.
I do not like the vagueness of general notability guidelines, which lead to contentious AFDs and DRVs, but that calls for rework and an RFC, not a lot of skirmishes at DRV.
Fails sports notability, and the closer was correct in taking sports notability into account rather than GNG as a catch-all. I would prefer to make sports notability a stand-alone guideline. A reasonable closer can take into account that sports notability is meant to govern in most cases.
If the closer is supposed to count votes, change the rules to say so. The closer did what the rules say.
Endorse none of the WP:GNG votes explained why significant coverage was met and agreed only two sources even potentially qualified, but the delete !voters and commentators after the jump definitively showed those sources shouldn't/don't qualify. SportingFlyerT·C 23:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to whinge very strongly against the interpretation of "multiple." Looking at this article as it's been temporarily undeleted, there's no way in which any reasonable user taking a WP:AUD approach to this player would conclude this player is a notable sportsperson. Maston won one minor award in a (popular) amateur league and played minor league basketball since. I find the "well, two articles were written on him so he meets WP:GNG and can be kept" argument dangerous. SportingFlyerT·C 01:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the closing deletion. Examined the AfD and agree with the comments above about a number of WP:VAGUEWAVES from the "keep" camp. Took a look through the Google web and news search results; mostly directory listings, sports stat pages, profile pages, and the like. I saw very little press coverage, none of which seems to be WP:SIGCOV. Glad to see an admin closed this AfD as it as a tough call that one might've incorrectly closed as "keep". Strength of the argument was on the "delete" side despite them notionally only showing the nom plus two other !votes. Functional example of WP:NOTVOTE.Doug MehusT·C 14:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Even by the low bar of sportsperson biographies, this was not "significant coverage". Black Kite (talk) 10:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closer got it right. The delete !voters had a much stronger argument. Lepricavark (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
weak endorse I'd have !voted a weak keep or something like it, as I think there are two decent sources. But that deletion was within closing admin discretion based on the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs) 17:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This page was deleted back in June 2013 for supposedly failing GNG and the relevant part of the Wikiproject football notability essay. Since then there has been sustained coverage about the club leaders winning various awards [1], [2], [3], for the club's 50th Anniversary in 2017 [4], and it has become clear that they do emphatically pass the (admittedly rather low) bar of football club notability i.e. they have played in the primary national Cup competition. There's six pages of hits at the British Newspaper Archive. I have an offline source that they played in the 1974 FA Women's Cup semi-final and then the bronze medal match. The cuttings on their Facebook page seem to confirm this and also attest to national team players in their team. Most of this coverage is local rather than national media but it does discuss the subject directly and in detail. The nominator's boast in 2013 "we are unable to verify even the most basic facts about this club" is no longer true. In March 2019 I asked the closing admin to userfy it for me, but was ignored. So I'm asking here. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's rare for deletion review to enforce a six-year-old deletion discussion. AfDs expire over time, although there's no real consensus about exactly how long it takes. But six years is past any reasonable threshold. Also, women's football is taken a lot more seriously in 2019 than it was in 2013. For me, the big question is whether this article should be separate from Swindon Town W.F.C.; personally I think it would be preferable for us to have just the one article about women's football in Swindon, in the light of the somewhat intertwined history of the teams.—S MarshallT/C 02:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't see any problem with userfying it and an AfD doesn't prevent you from writing another version as long as the issues from the previous AfD are addressed (and for an AfD which is that old you should get the benefit of the doubt). The deleted version doesn't cite any third-party sources, doesn't claim any awards which are more impressive than coming second in a league at the sixth level of English women's football and mostly consists of team rosters which must be very out of date now, so I suspect it will need to be rewritten anyway. Hut 8.5 12:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favour of either granting you a WP:REFUND or allowing you to recreate the article from scratch, though you will have to clearly demonstrate notability. SportingFlyerT·C 23:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies, I am keen to try and bring it back (in much improved form) but didn't know the best way to go about it. I also didn't want to arouse any consternation by breaking any rules, so I appreciate the guidance given here. If it could be userfied to me I would be most grateful, although I realise I would obviously have to strip out all the out-of-date stuff before rewriting and adding references to knock it into shape. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much - I am happy with this outcome and for this review to be closed now. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The last discussion on this topic was in 2017. Previous reasons for deletion included WP:RS and WP:TOOSOON. However, since this was last discussed, he has become the co-host of The Young Turks. The channel averages over 30 million views per month, and has over 4.55 million subscribers.[5] Additionally, his newer show "The Damage Report" averages over 300,000 views a day. [6] As part his program, he has interviewed propionate public figures including Presidential Candidate Andrew Yang.[7] Additionally he is often cited by news outlets regarding his political analysis, such as Mediaite, Paste, Washington Examiner, Newsweek, and The Washington Post. He has also been on Politicking with Larry King and has been a contributor for KTLA. I now feel that I can assist in creating this page without running into WP:RS issues. This combined with his prior discussing on a show he hosted for Fusion TV and "True North" (a Verizon produced mini-series), makes me feel that this is now eligible for creation under WP:WEB. GeekInParadise (talk) 07:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of the original article and active proponent for previous keep votes, I certainly concur with the above. I felt there were sufficient sources the first time and continue to hold that opinion. Unfair, escalated standards seem to get applied when someone simply doesn't like an article, or related articles. AfD depends on votes, that is the reality, whether you profess an opposite opinion for public relations purposes. It is far easier to find an echo chamber of "me too" delete votes than to find anyone who will take the time to read. The Young Turks is a huge player in new media. New media does not get the same respect as old media. TYT is an overt politically progressive media source. That certainly offends those of differing political persuasions. Challenging the notability of Iadarola's article has been used as a pawn to keep the significance of the network and his prominent contribution to it, down. Trackinfo (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relist A new discussion is needed, and Afd is the place for it. DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shouldn't there be a refund, and or recreation, resubmission from draft? If we go back to AfD unimproved, we are likely to get driveby delete !votes. Lightburst (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I did not notice that the article is available. A new discussion will be helpful in determining notability as DGG has said. Lightburst (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article was redirected rather than destroyed. It's former version is available here. Further note, at the time he was the #3 anchor of the main show, plus hosting his own morning show. As of Cenk Uygur's run for congress Video on YouTube this week, he has been elevated to the co-anchor of the main show that is getting tens to hundreds of thousands of views daily. Trackinfo (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd vote to simply revert the redirect and add the new, qualifying sources in. If anyone thinks the article should still be deleted then, it can go to AfD. If the user improving the article wants a little more time, they can copy the most recent version to draft space and then bring it over. SportingFlyerT·C 04:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Sergey Naydin – Moot. Page has already been userfied, nothing left to do here. -- RoySmith(talk) 12:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The notability criteria for gymnasts have changed some months ago after the execution of the first Junior World Championships and seem to have established, including well sourced new Wikipedia articles. The article in question was a well written one, too, but deleted due to notability reasons. I am asking for undeletion because I want to continue working with it. I recommend to move it to Sergei Naidin because that's the common name used by the FIG (link) and on Wikipedia articles (1 vs. 2). Thanks in advance, —DerHexer(Talk) 17:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DerHexer: If a draftspace copy is what you want, I'm happy to provide one, though of course you could undelete it and move it to your userspace yourself. I don't see on what basis you are challenging the AfD, though; consensus was clear there...Vanamonde (Talk) 04:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: As said, the not-notable discussion have been at a time when the text was a different one. In the mean time, the notability criteria were lifted for younger gymnasts (with good results, as said). He now is notable, as a medaillist of Youth Olympic Games (just like medaillists of Junior World Championships are notable). Of course, as an administrator I could myself restore it, even directly to the main namespace. I just don't think that this would be appropriate, being an active member of that topic. I am also open for other suggestions: I don't think that a new AfD would be useful because the updated notability criteria are very obvious; restoration to my username space where I would just add some photos, maybe some updates for the last year, and would move it to the main namespace afterwards. The latter would work for me and I would be glad if anyone else could do this. Best, —DerHexer(Talk) 11:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DerHexer: Here you go: User:DerHexer/Sergey Naydin. Please leave a link to the change in the notability criteria when you recreate this, otherwise it's not unlikely that someone will tag it for CSD#G4. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Has this been taken care of? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
