A Lawrey – Endorsed. While a relist might have been possible, its comments against policy that count and the keep arguments advance no sources and don’t really address how GNG isn’t an option. SpartazHumbug! 18:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC) SpartazHumbug! 18:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The close did not reflect the clear majority (four keep votes against one delete vote and the nomination itself) and the participants in the discussion disagreed with Sandstein's interpretation of NSPORTS. WP:N contradicts the suggestion that NSPORTS requires GNG to be met, stating It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right (emphasis mine). When faced with inconsistent rules, I feel the local consensus should prevail. The closer also did not consider the possibility of a redirect as an WP:ATD. Overturn to keep or no consensusNemesisAT (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support close The sports SNG explicitly says it abides by GNG and subjects must pass GNG. No one prevented any significant coverage that would add towards passing GNG. Plus the keep votes ignored the reality that the "silver medal" was one in a 2 team competition. When silver medal means you come in last place it should not be treated as a medal demonstrating winning.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse WP:N says it's either GNG or SNG, but the SNG (NSPORTS) also says that GNG must be met. A valid case for keeping would have had included rebuttals to the nominator's original statement that the sourcing is insufficient to establish notability. Avilich (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved). Sandstein's close is based on the wording of NSPORTS; it is appropriate to give less weight to arguments that are not aligned with policy. BilledMammal (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist (involved) I agree with NemesisAT, although I think that a relisting would probably have resolved the issue. Given what NemesisAT has highlighted (greened?) and emphasized, I do not believe that its safe to say that NSPORTS is as clear as the delete votes make it seem, and that keep votes can therefore automatically be weighed less. CanadianPaul 22:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The arguments were weighed appropriately by the admin. The SNG for WP:NSPORTS requires GNG to be met as well. The Keep voters ignored that and did not present arguments to actually support notability. Hence, their votes were ignored, as is appropriate. SilverserenC 23:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn It's up to the !voters to apply guidelines, and the closer to read consensus, not to interpret guidelines themselves. The !voters chose to apply the WP:NOLY SNG. The following are applicable guidelines to consider (emphasis added): Wikipedia:Notability:
A topic is presumed to merit an article if:...It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right...
The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below.
The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it.
Q4: What is considered a "reasonable amount of time" to uncover appropriate sources? A4: There is no fixed rule, as it may differ in each specific case. Generally, though, since there is no fixed schedule to complete Wikipedia articles, given a reasonable expectation that sources can be found, Wikipedia editors have been very liberal in allowing for adequate time...
Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants.
Both WP:N and NSPORTS allow meeting the SNG to be a presumption of notability. Nowhere does it say GNG must be met now, else we delete now. !Voters are free to choose to delete now, but it was not the consensus here. While GNG should eventually be met, !voters chose to exercise the SNG to allow time. Considering the numerical vote was 4–2 to keep, it's inexplicable why—if the close rationale was that the arguments truly "do not address the sourcing situation"—a relist wasn't at least chosen, given the !vote gap. The close ignored the general judgement of the participants, and moreover misinterpretted guidelines to discount !votes. While the WP:DGFA guideline allows the close to override !votes to comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable, none of those policies were raised as an issue here.—Bagumba (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article had presumably existed for a while already, and so 'eventually' was reasonably interpreted to mean now. Even if it was a recent creation, this dubious interpretation of 'eventually' cannot override WP:ONUS. Avilich (talk) 12:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, !voters are competent enough to write Delete if they meant now.—Bagumba (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's that supposed to mean, and why does it even matter? The article had existed for a while and so "eventually" no sources were found -- that is all that matters. Just how long does "eventually" need to be by your standards until the "keep per NSPORTS" spam becomes insufficient an argument in its own right? Avilich (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It really doesn't matter what I think eventually means. I didn't !vote at the AfD and DRV is to assess the points already in the AfD, not for any of to discuss the specific merits (or not) of that page.—Bagumba (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If what you think 'eventually' means doesn't matter, then your opinion that the outcome should be overturned because the guidelines say that sources may 'eventually' be found also doesn't matter. Avilich (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you thought it was enough time, but the guideline left eventually open-ended, it's up to the AfD !voters to answer "when", not anyone in a DRV.—Bagumba (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except they did not answer "when", so the default rule here is WP:ONUS, which in any case supersedes any wikilawyer-ish interpretation of 'eventually'. Avilich (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep" means do not delete now per SNG (and per WP:N).—Bagumba (talk) 03:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You keep mentioning WP:N, so I presume you noticed it says "notability requires verifiable evidence". If you wish to argue properly, you need to say that keep voters should have shown verifiable evidence that the topic may "eventually" meet GNG. If you can't understand that your logic allows groups of people, as long as they have a numerical majority, to keep articles indefinitely without having to give a single source (in violation of WP:N [RV] and WP:ONUS, among other rules), or that it's a bad thing, then I'm done here. If this article underwent another AfD and DRV 10 years from now, you'd no doubt still be saying that "the article must not be deleted now" is an argument worthy of consideration. Avilich (talk) 03:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...you'd no doubt still be saying that "the article must not be deleted now": I didn't !vote in the AfD, and never said that. I'm sorry if you don't understand that a DRV is not an AfD do over. We'll agree to disagree. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 04:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was obviously referring to voting on DRV (in the sense of endorsing arguments of the like when they are made in an AfD), not AfD. Avilich (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn or relist With a 4-2 vote count, with 2 keeps making some reference to the NSPORTS/GNG argument, and all voters citing or alluding to some policy or guideline, I don't see a case to use closer discretion here. If this many editors are consistently making such "fatal" errors with NSPORTS, it probably means the guideline needs to be fixed. But the closer shouldn't be trying to fix this in local consensus, rather fix it in an RfC first. JumpytooTalk 05:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as yet another Sandstein Supervote. Ignores WP:DGFA. Ignores WP:ATD-R. Ignores WP:NHC. Inexplicably declines to relist. I could go into more on any of these, but it seems I do at least every month on one of these deletions. We have an admin here who is neither following policy nor accepting gentle correction when his failings are pointed out. Jclemens (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse It's clear from NSPORTS that GNG should generally be satisfied. In this case "common sense" says that a man, whose name we don't even know, is not notable, especially since it seems no significant coverage has been found. Nigej (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clear to you, perhaps. But this is a DRV, not AfD: Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question (Wikipedia:Deletion review#Commenting in a deletion review). The closer could have instead !voted that way to help make it clearer, and left it for someone else to close.—Bagumba (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I would have supported deleting/redirecting this, but the close doesn't reflect the discussion. NSPORTS is an SNG and arguments based on the subject passing an SNG are reasonable and shouldn't be discounted. There are various proposals open to remove or gut NSPORTS but it's not appropriate to try to implement those through individual AfD closures. Hut 8.5 08:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. NSPORTS is explicitly subordinate to the GNG. Many years ago, the community had a discussion that was pretty closely balanced but, seen in exactly the right light with a following wind, just about shaded into consensus to promote NSPORTS to guideline. A central part of the negotiations to promote it was the rule that NSPORTS shouldn't overrule the GNG, without which NSPORTS wouldn't be a guideline at all. I very much approve of any decision that enforces this.—S MarshallT/C 10:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NSPORTS is explicitly subordinate to the GNG: Can you provide the specific excerpt? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You linked a lot of past talk page discussions. However, we can only go off what is the current implementation in the actual text of the NSPORTS guideline. I see nothing in the guideline about NSPORTS being "explicitly subordinate to the GNG".—Bagumba (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think discussions from 2010, 2011, and 2013 shoydtake precedence over WP:N which today states that a subject only needs to meet either an SNG or GNG for presumed notability. NemesisAT (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that those discussions are old. If the community has changed its mind, then please could you link the discussion in which it did so? I want to say that that's a very dramatic change, because if NSPORTS could actually overrule the GNG, then the practical effect of that would be to shift the burden of proof onto the delete side. In other words, the only way you could ever delete an article about a sportsperson would be to somehow prove that significant coverage doesn't exist. That's an extraordinary burden of proof: how could anyone ever meet that? It makes sportspeople articles practically undeletable. And where the sportsperson is still alive, how do you think that interacts with our rules on biographies of living people where we have to remove unsourced or undersourced information on sight?—S MarshallT/C 23:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere does it say GNG is "overruled". NSPORTS works in conjunction with GNG. From one of the quotes listed above (at my 04:56, 17 February post), per WP:NSPORTS#Q1 (emphasis added):
The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it.
I note you don't link a discussion where the community agreed that NSPORTS can be an alternative to the GNG. May I take it that you concede that point? I'm also confused by the idea that NSPORTS stops an article being "quickly" deleted. In practice it is used to stop an article being deleted after a full seven-day AFD during which, I would have thought, the keep side might be expected to turn up a source or two.—S MarshallT/C 00:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NSPORTS#Q4 regarding the timing. WP:N says either GNG or an SNG provides a presumption of notability. NSPORTS says it can be used to stave off deletion, but GNG should eventually be met. If AfD participants say keep per NSPORTS, "eventually" is decided to not mean now. The assumption is that (most in) the community are learned enough to not game the system. So we AGF, or otherwise change the guidelines. I dont accept closers enacting their own set of rules that dont reflect existing guideline nor what the participants discussed.—Bagumba (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it really does seem to me that this means that if I nominate a sports biography for deletion, you can say, "No, sources probably exist and someone will produce them eventually," and if you do say that, then the article can't be deleted. This seems very lax indeed, and hard to reconcile with our rigorous rules about undersourced biographies; although it does explain why nearly half the biographies on Wikipedia are about sportspeople.—S MarshallT/C 16:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My one !vote wouldnt have that much weight. We operate on consensus, and others would have to assess the situation similarly, unless the closer decided to supervote based on my minority position.—Bagumba (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We operate on rough consensus, in which the closer gives people's !votes weight according to their basis in policy. Policies represent the wider community consensus and it's the closer's job to see that they're followed. In the case of this debate, I feel the !votes that are wrongly grounded in the mistaken idea that NSPORTS can overrule the GNG are actually counter-consensus and therefore deserve little weight. I feel that community's intent, underlying our content policies and expresed most clearly in WP:V, is that when someone makes a reasonable complaint of poor sourcing, the only acceptable answer should be to add new and better sources, and when as in this case the sources don't appear, the disputed content should be deleted.—S MarshallT/C 18:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A topic is presumed to merit an article if...It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right...
I don't understand the frequent accusation, not just from you, that GNG is being nefariously "overruled". The guideline left GNG/SNG decided on a per-case basis. If a guideline is open to interpretation, the closer should 1) leave it to the !voters' to interpret 2) consider !voting instead of closing 3) get consensus to clarify the guideline pages, is needed.—Bagumba (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but the whole point is that the criteria of NSPORTS is ultimately the GNG. So, let me translate that: it's either the GNG or, ultimately, the GNG. That's what the argument is. Dege31 (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In cases where something that doesn't pass the GNG is nevertheless deemed "notable", I think it's entirely fair to say that the GNG is being overruled. At some point in the past few years someone has edited WP:N to say that SNGs are coequal with the GNG. I view that edit as incredibly poorly thought through and I am currently researching to work out who did that, when they did it, and whether there was a proper discussion advertised on WP:CENT to support their change.—S MarshallT/C 13:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the exact diff where the wording was introduced, but this diff from 2007 indicates that a subject has presumed notability if it meets either the general notability guideline or an SNG. NemesisAT (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That pre-dates NSPORTS. Three years later, the discussion in which NSPORTS was promoted to guideline clearly envisages that it's subordinate to the GNG. The most recent consensus I've been able to find about this is here, where we find There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion. [and] There is a general unhappiness with the permissiveness of some NSPORTS criteria, but no consensus in this discussion on any specific changes to any of them. I agree with the closers' analysis of that debate and am sad that the community can't converge on a fix.—S MarshallT/C 16:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly after skimming that conversation I'm not seeing the "clear consensus" quoted above but I don't see any point arguing with youa about it. If the consensus was so clear, why was WP:N never updated? NemesisAT (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, because there wasn't consensus for any specific change. As I said, in my view the situation is that the community knows NSPORTS is out of alignment with the rest of the encyclopaedia but can't converge on a fix.—S MarshallT/C 17:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So as the guidelines haven't yet been changed and SNGs still have equal weight to GNG, the closing statement was incorrect (or personal opinion) and the result should have been "keep" given there were four "keep" votes in keeping with our WP:N guideline, vs one delete. NemesisAT (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The community doesn't think SNGS have equal weight to the GNG at all, though. Someone's stuck that in the text of WP:N but, as demonstrated in the five or six discussions I've linked so far in this debate, that wording doesn't reflect the community's real view. The "delete" close was correct because the "keep" side just !voted when what they needed to do was produce sources.—S MarshallT/C 18:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Sigcov was established by any of the editors. scope_creepTalk 14:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question (the same for below) was his first name ever found? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep, per NemesisAT and Bagumba. Sandstein's close seems to be a supervote (just like he did at Pete Vainowski). BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn or relist Even if we completely disregard all the keep !votes (which we shouldn't), a single delete !vote plus the nominator amounts to a WP:SOFTDELETE at most. As multiple people have indicated a preference to restore the article, do so, and potentially relist at AfD to try to get more participation and build a better consensus. Smartyllama (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Relist I simply don't see consensus here. Their was sole Delete response to the AFD. The close appears to be a super vote, that cherry picks NSPORT, ignoring the section Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb. Long-standing consensus in the project is that players from a century ago are going to be hard to find sources for. If there were to be supervotes, then I'm not sure why redirect to Rugby union at the 1908 Summer Olympics#Great Britain (Cornwall) wouldn't be a more suitable outcome. Nfitz (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. No rebuttal was provided to counter to the GNG failure argument, which is paramount when NSPORTS pass is challenged at AFD, so the pure SNG-based keep arguments were rightly given very little weight. Successive discussions and RFCs have long established that NSPORTS does not supersede GNG, but it's evident that many editors will continue to ignore this standing consensus. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. In my experience sports editors do have access to some of the best sports bio sources and will post them at AfD and add them to the article if coverage can be found, so if they looked and didn't find any then it's safe to say that GNG coverage can no longer be presumed. I'm not sure what type of offline/hard-to-find sources would exist for this since newspapers from that era are widely digitized. –dlthewave☎ 21:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is relisted, it may be best to wait until the NSPORTS omnibus RfC is closed since it aims to clear up some of the confusing and conflicting guidelines which led to this DRV in the first place. –dlthewave☎ 17:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, AfD is not a vote. While closing against a seeming majority sentiment certainly requires a strong reason to do so, it is not forbidden. In this instance, the AfD rationale challenged meeting GNG, not something else, and the "Keep" arguments failed to even much address, let alone refute, that claim. "Meets an SNG" is not relevant when that wasn't even what was challenged to start with, and of course closers are expected to discount weak and irrelevant arguments. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 21:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:N, meets an SNG is a valid argument to keep (or at least, it's equally as valid as saying something meets GNG) NemesisAT (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not. Passing an SNG is guidance for when GNG will likely be met, not a substitute for actually meeting it. While passing an SNG gives a presumption that GNG is passed, that is a rebuttable presumption if an editor makes a genuinely good effort to find GNG-quality sources and comes up empty. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 05:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NSPORTS already says: ...meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept; it's a given that it's rebuttable. I'd expect more than a minority !voting to delete when an SNG is verifiably met. There's a growing lack of AGF in applying an SNG. If an SNG is unreliable, fix it or get it delisted. There's something wrong if the closer is interprettng guidelines and not just !voting themselves.—Bagumba (talk) 06:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. WP:N bullet 1: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and. If you read WP:GNG, you'll see it is also a presumption of notability, just like the SNGs. NemesisAT (talk) 09:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- AfD is not a vote, and arguments that don't address the nomination are often about as useful as "Keep- I like pie". ReykYO! 22:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I accidentally put some of my !vote reasoning for this DRV in the other DRV instead: And the claim that WP:N somehow elevates an individual sport-specific guideline above that of NSPORT itself and therefore abolishes the need for GNG is absolutely specious.JoelleJay (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst SNG was met and is a reasonable argument to keep (a rebuttable presumption), if so little is known about a person that we cannot even discern his first name, I have grave doubts that we could consider him notable. Stifle (talk) 12:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was mentioned in the AfD that the name was updated. It appears to be Arthur.[2]—Bagumba (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and his surname was actually Lawry. Rather embarrassingly we have the wrong man mentioned here 1907–08 Rugby Union County Championship. It was Arthur who played in this match and not Dr Lawry. See [3] which clearly shows Arthur in kit (seated left) and Dr Lawry not. Nigej (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn or relist Closing as delete when four of five participants presented valid keep arguments is a supervote. It's clear what side of the fence Sandstein is on in the interminable GNG vs SNG debates, but if he wishes to express his interpretation of the notability guidelines he should do so as a participant, not close the discussion.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note canvassing to this DRV by an AfD !deleter here.—Bagumba (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's the village pump, not a partisan editors talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The message however was not neutral at all. NemesisAT (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's problematic and procedurally irregular. Could the closer of this DRV please consider having a word with that editor?—S MarshallT/C 09:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse None of the keep arguments address or even attempt to address the reason for deletion, instead going off on the usual fallacy of automatic notability, which is at odds with the community guidelines as written (which require evidence, not unsupported assertions, of notability); despite an obvious (and invalid) WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to the contrary by some sports editors. The closer correctly disregarded the invalid arguments. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N reads A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right while WP:NSPORTS reads The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. Thus the keep voters citing WP:NSPORTS are doing so according to our guidelines. NemesisAT (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is very clearly WP:WIKILAWYERING which is at odds with the guideline as applied in practice and which is also at odds with every other policy (including WP:NOR, WP:NOT and WP:V). Your own personal misinterpretation of this does not mean that you can override wider community consensus. WP:NSPORTS also says, and quite friggin obviously too, that meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. You selectively ignoring this is not my problem, but if it continues it might very well become one for the wider community to address. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If reading and following two separate guidelines that are consistent with each other is wikilawering, why bother with guidelines at all? If you disagree with them, request that they're changed but until them I'm following the guidelines. NemesisAT (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express; and doing so by applying a portion of a policy or guideline to achieve an objective other than compliance with that policy or guideline or its objectives (or, in a less verbose form, cherry-picking). The underlying principle these policies express is that there should be sufficient sources from which to write an encyclopedic article. The guidelines as written are indeed consistent with each other, in that none overrides the need for evidence of notability (WP:NRVE) or for sources being shown to exist when challenged (NSPORTS FAQ no. 2). You going for a narrow reading of WP:N, when NSPORTS explicitly states it does not override the requirement for GNG (a view which was affirmed in a 2017 RfC), is indeed rules-lawyering of the worst kind. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. I haven't cherry picked sentences from deep in the guidelines, I'm referring to the lead section of both. After accusing me of cherry picking, you've cherry picked two sections from within the guidelines! I don't see any point in arguing further, I stand by my opinion that the keep votes are in keeping with our guidelines and shouldn't be discounted. NemesisAT (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quoting anything particularly obscure (NRVE has a big header for itself, so hard to miss; and the quote is from the lead of NSPORTS). On top of that, the very first sentence of NSPORTS is This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. [emphasis mine]. If a guideline is used to "help evaluate" whether something "is likely to meet the general notability guideline", it's clear that any interpretation of it which comes to an opposite conclusion (that GNG is not required) is either A) wrong or B) willfully wrong. Multiple editors having the same misunderstanding does not mean that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can override this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You are correct in that the keep votes should not be discounted, however they have rightly been given very little weight here because they did not address the lack of secondary, significant coverage, and instead just kept repeating "meets SNG" without ever presenting a single instance of significant coverage or even a claim that any might exist. Also, as has been pointed out, successive RFCs (in addition to countless other discussions, including AFDs) have reaffirmed the community's view on the relative standing of NSPORT with respect to GNG; i.e. GNG must be met (eventually), which means (and includes) when challenged at AFD. As stated, keep !voters failed to even attempt to address that here. wjematherplease leave a message... 17:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn or Relist - The policies and guidelines are sufficiently complicated and confused that we should ignore the existing rules and apply what the rules ought to be, which is that either GNG or an SNG should apply. The SNG does apply. Anyway, when the rules are in doubt, let the consensus rule. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This goes directly against WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. The rules are not in doubt, and they are not confusing for anyone who actually tries to understand them. That there is a vocal subgroup of sports editors who happen to !vote in nearly every athlete AfD but refuse to acknowledge longstanding broad consensus is immaterial to what that wider consensus is. The applicable SNG is NSPORT, which states in at least 5 places that GNG-level coverage is required to merit an article and must eventually be demonstrated. Selectively ignoring those sections of the SNG contravenes WP:N. JoelleJay (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The real WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is this mistaken notion that an SNG can be dependent on the GNG. All other SNGs are independent of the GNG, and yet people keep trying to argue that stricter SNGs can exist--NSPORT, PROF, NORG--when there exist a large number of Wikipedia editors who reject the notion as simply a category error: to the extent that an SNG says the GNG AND SNG must both be met, that text is against longstanding Wikipedia consensus and disregarded. Jclemens (talk) 07:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: Have you ever read NSPORTS? The very first sentence defines what it is. It is not an alternative to GNG. It is not an inclusion criteria by itself. It is a guideline used to help evaluate whether a topic is likely to meet GNG. Says so right off the bat. People of course can be excused for not quite having the same opinion as the written guidelines, but the guideline documents the existing commnunity consensus, and individual editors coming to a conclusion that somehow GNG can be ignored is very hard to justify as anything but motivated reasoning based on a few select snippets, and the best description of it is indeed it being a LOCALCONSENSUS which is at odds with that of the wider community. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If NSPORTS is an SNG and claims that GNG must be met, then it is at odds with other SNGs and the longstanding understanding that notability is GNG or SNG. No SNG can say "must meet the GNG and..." and at the same time be consistent with notability as developed over decades. A LOCALCONSENSUS to try and make NSPORT some sort of a zombified SNG that can't be met without the GNG already being met is aberrant, rather than normative. Jclemens (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: why would being at odds render an SNG invalid? We have countless exceptions to policy - SNGs are, by their very nature, exemptions to the default PAGs and there is zero obligation for any PAG to match the general trend of rules. In the D&D world, you'd call it the "specific rule trumps general rule" use-case. Should we also prohibit NPROF, because its notability methodology is such an outlier? NSPORTS is not a local consensus, because it was formed as a full PAG by the broader community. This DRV could claim to override NSPORTS and that would be a LOCALCONSENSUS. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not the SNG, just the clauses that said that the SNG was dependent on the GNG being met. Jclemens (talk) 06:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) @Jclemens Have you ever read "all the other SNGs"?
SNGs with GNG criteria
WP:NASTRO: Astronomical objects are notable if they have received substantial attention and coverage in reliable sources ... Coverage must be specific and substantial: notability is not ensured just because an object is listed in a scientific paper or included in a large-scale astronomical survey. To establish notability, the astronomical object must have significant commentary in reliable sources, such as being one of the primary targets of a study with in-depth discussion (beyond discovery and basic parameters). In the section titled "No inherent notability": Notability is determined solely by coverage in reliable sources, not whether editors personally believe an astronomical object is important. These requirements are clearly equivalent to GNG. The astro-specific criteria indicate a subject is presumed notable, but given the above quotes are in the instructions for establishing notability, NASTCRIT are clearly only intended as supplemental rules-of-thumb to predict GNG.
WP:NEVENT: Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect. Re: lasting effect: Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance are likely to be notable. This is the only part of this SNG that could be interpreted as "alternative to GNG", however "noted and sourced" historical significance pretty much precludes any event that doesn't have GNG coverage, especially when the guideline asks us to evaluate based on these other factors: An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. ... Wikipedia's general notability guideline recommends that multiple sources be provided to establish the notability of a topic, not just multiple references from a single source.[3] A series of news reports by a single newspaper or news channel would not be sufficient basis for an article. This is a restatement of GNG.
WP:NFILM: Directly defers to GNG in almost all cases, but contains some criteria for inclusion that presume GNG but don't immediately require GNG sourcing.
WP:NNUMBER: Requires professional articles about the subject, or "obvious cultural significance" and listing in specific published books. So, even more rigorous than GNG.
WP:NORG: No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have given significant coverage to it. Restatement of GNG.
WP:NWEB: Wikipedia should not have a separate article on any web content that does not meet the criteria of either this guideline or the general notability guideline, or any web content that, despite meeting the rules of thumb described above, for whom editors ultimately cannot locate independent sources that provide in-depth information about the web content. Ultimately requires GNG, even when meeting the single non-GNG-restated criterion The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.
Fully half of all SNGs have criteria that are at least ultimately identical to or presume GNG. Several explicitly state they predict GNG, including NSPORT. JoelleJay (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I think you've made my point for me--that various efforts have been made to erase the alternative nature of SNGs--but I'm guessing that's not what you intended. Jclemens (talk) 06:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: you'll have to talk us through the reasoning here. Firstly you're saying the "alternative nature" as if it is a global, all-cases, standard, that specifically prohibits the possibility of the SNG itself using GNG as a standard. Secondly, even if there had been various efforts to erase it (and that's not what I believe is happening, as it was clearly never intended for SNGs to be outright prohibited from using GNG), that still wouldn't be an issue because the SNGs are discussed at a community wide level. They'd be perfectly entitled to narrow down a previously broader scope. That's what community decision-making can do. If you want to change either individual SNGs to be broader, or even re-write WP:N to specifically prohibit SNGs calling back to GNG, that's fine, but you need to get the community to actively sign on to it. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, I don't have to justify my reasoning why I find the current wording uncompelling. I did anyways, but the fact that you don't find my reasoning compelling isn't an issue I find demands my further time and repetition. Jclemens (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Sports SNG do not override GNG and the subject failed GNG due to lack of SIGCOV. None of the keep !votes addressed that fact. Alvaldi (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to relist If you are closing against numeric consensus of reasonable people citing reasonable guidelines and there has been no relist before, it's best to relist. I suspect this should be deleted (or more likely redirected), but not with that discussion. Hobit (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
E. J. Jones (rugby union) – Endorsed. Basically as before but a clearer consensus. While arguments rage about whether GNG or NSPORTS win, the fact is that keep arguments do not resolve the inadequate sourcing SpartazHumbug! 19:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The closer cited their own close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. Lawrey as the reason for this delete close. As that close is now under review, I feel this one should be nominated to. Overturn to no consensusNemesisAT (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support close SNGs cannot overcome GNG, and no significant coverage was offered.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect. WP:N says presumed notability if a subject passes either GNG or an SNG. NemesisAT (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sports SNGs specifically require a passing of GNG, and this has been endorsed through RfC.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved). Sandstein's close is based on the wording of NSPORTS; it is appropriate to give less weight to arguments that are not aligned with policy. BilledMammal (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NSPORTS isn't policy. Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Policy is very clear about what policies will prompt discounting of non-compliant opinions. There's not a single notability guideline listed there. Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist (involved, copying my rationale from other discussion) I agree with NemesisAT, although I think that a relisting would probably have resolved the issue. Given what NemesisAT has highlighted (greened?) and emphasized, I do not believe that its safe to say that NSPORTS is as clear as the delete votes make it seem, and that keep votes can therefore automatically be weighed less. CanadianPaul 22:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse As with above, the GNG is required to be met for sports player articles. Their SNG specifically states this. If Keep voters don't actually advance an argument showcasing support for GNG on the article subject, then their votes are appropriately summarily ignored when determining consensus. SilverserenC 23:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist While unlike with the other DRV, a 3-3 count can be subject to closer discretion. But 2 of the keep votes made some reference the GNG/NSPORTS argument, and I feel it is better to relist AfD's that are evenly split. Perhaps the additional time could of found sources or determined there were no sources to meet GNG. JumpytooTalk 05:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn for all the same reasons as A. Lawrey's DRV. Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist It's up to the !voters to apply guidelines, and the closer to read consensus, not to interpret guidelines themselves. Some !voters chose to apply the WP:NOLY SNG. The following are applicable guidelines to consider (emphasis added): Wikipedia:Notability:
A topic is presumed to merit an article if:...It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right...
The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below.
The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it.
Q4: What is considered a "reasonable amount of time" to uncover appropriate sources? A4: There is no fixed rule, as it may differ in each specific case. Generally, though, since there is no fixed schedule to complete Wikipedia articles, given a reasonable expectation that sources can be found, Wikipedia editors have been very liberal in allowing for adequate time...
Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants.
Both WP:N and NSPORTS allow meeting the SNG to be a presumption of notability. Nowhere does it say GNG must be met now, else we delete now. !Voters are free to choose to delete now, but there was no consensus yet. While GNG should eventually be met, some !voters chose to exercise the SNG to allow time. Considering the numerical vote was 3–3, it's inexplicable why it wasn't relisted. The close ignored the general deadlock of the participants, and moreover misinterpretted guidelines to discount !votes. While the WP:DGFA guideline allows the close to override !votes to comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable, none of those policies were raised as an issue here.—Bagumba (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Same issue as in the A. Lawrey case. Absolutely no evidence has been produced that this man is notable. Nigej (talk) 07:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per my remarks in the DRV immediately above this one.—S MarshallT/C 10:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Relist I simply don't see consensus here. The close appears to be a super vote, that cherry picks NSPORT, ignoring the section Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb. Long-standing consensus in the project is that players from a century ago are going to be hard to find sources for. If there were to be supervotes, then I'm not sure why redirect to Rugby union at the 1908 Summer Olympics#Great Britain (Cornwall) wouldn't be a more suitable outcome. Nfitz (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. No rebuttal was provided to counter to the GNG failure argument, which is paramount when NSPORTS pass is challenged at AFD, so the pure SNG-based keep arguments were rightly given very little weight. Successive discussions and RFCs have long established that NSPORTS does not supersede GNG, but it's evident that many editors will continue to ignore this standing consensus. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N should be updated, in that case. As of right now, it clearly states that either passing GNG or an SNG means notability is presumed. Thus the four keep voters were correct per WP:N. NemesisAT (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NemesisAT, this argument completely fails as there is no statement or even implication that an SNG cannot itself require the equivalent of GNG. Passing NSPORT means a subject has a rebuttable presumption of meeting GNG based on meeting a sport-specific subcriterion, it does not mean a subject meets WP:N automatically by virtue of meeting a subcriterion regardless of GNG existing. That is the end of the story. JoelleJay (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Per Wjemather. And the claim that WP:N somehow elevates an individual sport-specific guideline above that of NSPORT itself and therefore abolishes the need for GNG is absolutely specious. JoelleJay (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. As above, discussions of an SNG are not relevant when the nomination challenges whether the subject meets the GNG. Closers are expected to disregard weak and irrelevant arguments; AfD is not a vote. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 21:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N literally says notability is presumed whether an article meets GNG or an SNG NemesisAT (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And the SNG is NSPORT, which mandates GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How can a guideline mandate anything? You are looking at this through a black and white lens, when you need to be using one with shades of grey. In fact, NSPORT says that articles SHOULD meet GNG. Not must. Yes, there's contradictory stuff in the guidelines - all the more reason to seek out consensus. Nfitz (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know what Q5 says by now. There is no logical reading of WP:N or NSPORT that suddenly elevates an individual SSG to SNG status.
What "eventually" means is up to editors to defend, and the closer used their discretion to evaluate the strength of their arguments. When there are no arguments along these lines the closer is within their rights to discount those !votes. JoelleJay (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
no logical reading of WP:N or NSPORT that suddenly elevates an individual SSG to SNG status: "Suddenly elevates"? NSPORT is an SNG. Full stop. See Template:Notability guide i.e. the SNGs listed in the box on the right that the top of WP:N explictly refers to.—Bagumba (talk) 05:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, NSPORT is the SNG. Not NFOOTY or NCRIC or NRUGBY. So what NSPORT requires of its SSGs is what would be considered by the "or" sentence in WP:N. We've been over this so many times... JoelleJay (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- AfD is not a vote. Nominator and at least one participant pointed out that the sources to sustain an article aren't there; in response, replies of "there must be sources out there somewhere" and "SNG says we don't need sources" are about as useful as a chocolate teapot. ReykYO! 22:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see either of your quotes, User:Reyk in the AFD - or anything close. Can you please edit review your Endorse as it seems to be based on fallacies. Nfitz (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. People treat the SNGs as though they're an exemption from the usual substantial sourcing requirements and that mindset was pretty obvious from the AfD. The closer did right not to give those arguments much weight. ReykYO! 01:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are literally no requirements - it's guidance. Though even if it were, they are sourced - this isn't a situation where it appears to be a hoax or something. Meanwhile, we are judging the close - and there simply isn't consensus to delete. The close was premature - and I wouldn't be surprised if the consensus would end up being another option, such as redirect. Nfitz (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Whilst meeting one of the NSPORTS guidelines is sufficient to establish a presumption of notability, when so little is known about a person that we cannot even say his first name, the presumption is rebutted. Stifle (talk) 12:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
cannot even say his first name: That wasn't even an argument in the AfD. Some people do go by their initials. In any event, it's Edwin Jacob Jones.[4]—Bagumba (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note canvassing to this DRV by an AfD !deleter here.—Bagumba (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's the village pump, not a partisan editors talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was a non-neutral mention. The venue was fine.—Bagumba (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse In this case the editors were evenly divided, but strength of argument (the necessity for evidence of notability and not mere assertions that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES) was definitively on the delete side, and the keeps did not plausibly address this, hence this was a closer correctly applying WP:NOTAVOTE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Keep, or Relist - Could these two appeals have been bundled? I know that isn't usually done here. The same arguments apply. The rough consensus can govern when the rules are confused. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that the first is against a more obvious numerical majority. Here the !votes are evenly divided. Closers favouring the side with strength of argument when !votes are numerically evenly divided is entirely routine and frankly a waste of everyone's time to re-argue it. The other case (favouring a clear minority if they have strength of argument) is a bit rarer, but is still in line with the expectations of WP:NOTAVOTE. This isn't a case of the guidelines being confusing. As written, right from the very first sentence, NSPORTS is not at odds with GNG, despite some editors having an interpretation which is in effect a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to the contrary. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And when you ignore the canvassed vote, !votes here are in favour of deletion. BilledMammal (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse NSPORTS does not supersede GNG and the subject failed GNG due to lack of significant coverage. None of the keep !votes addressed that fact. Alvaldi (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
overturn to relist per the argument I made in the above DRV. And a WP:TROUT to the closer. If you are going to make a close you know (or should know) would be contested and yet you are sure you are making the right close, let someone else close the next one of the same type. Otherwise you are indicating a pretty strong fear that some other admin will reach the opposite conclusion. Not a good look IMO. Hobit (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - while it would not be impossible to argue that olympic medals would warrant an IAR keep, that doesn't appear to have been utilised. Instead !vote reasoning was premised off the now recurring NSPORTS/GNG split, where the policy text is unambiguous. In response to @Bagumba:'s citing of WP:N, I'd point out that the key bit here is that the SNG is not satisfied because it itself requires GNG to ultimately be met (in effect, each path here leads to GNG). That's not always the case - a village could pass GEOLAND (SNG) without passing GNG and thus meet WP:N, but not with athletes. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear: Your interpretation of SNGs like NSPORT seem to highlight WP:5P5: The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording... The numerous SNGs become all for naught if GNG immediately overrules them. But that doesnt seems to be the spirit of why SNGs were created; what use would they serve otherwise? If consensus has changed in this respect, it should be formalized with a straight-forward request to delist them, avoiding polarized and voluminous AfDs and DRVs. Until then, the suggestion that the intent of SNGs' current wording was to provide no practical benefits seems contrived.—Bagumba (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "principles and spirit" of pretty much all notability guidelines is that Wikipedia should not have articles on every random topic, and that when it does have articles, such entries should be able to provide something more than a database entry or dictionary definition. What NSPORT seems to be (based on its very first sentence) is an attempt to help editors determine whether some arbitrary (in this case, sports-related) topic is likely to meet some criteria for inclusion. It's supposed to help editors focus their time on worthy subjects, and discourage creation of articles on subjects for which there is unlikely to be sufficient material for us to write an encyclopedic article. Clearly, in it's current state, it is not achieving that (as it seems to be leading to the opposite of this intended effect, by actually encouraging the creation of articles on topics which there is not much to say about); but that thankfully seems to be more due, inded, to a misunderstanding of the principles and spirit of the guideline (along with some ambiguity which needs to be resolved) than with the guideline itself. It's clear that SNGs can exist without being alternatives to GNGs - many of them, in fact, like WP:NASTRO or WP:NCORP, provide explicit advice on this and suggest which kind of sources are likely to be of help to writing a proper encyclopedic article and which ones not so much. I don't see why the fixation that it must be "SNG overrides GNG; or its worthless". If anything, we should be making sure all SNGs correctly predict when there is sufficient coverage on topics so as to assure we provide better quality content to our readers, not trying to make exemptions because of personal prejudice on the matter. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist The keep voters had some valid arguments. Namely, the possibility of a redirect, and newly added information. The closer stated that no substantial coverage was found. However, since new facts were being added the very day before the close, it's possible enough would have been added given more time. Even ignoring that, was there clearly a consensus even against a redirect? Taking these matters into account, we can not totally dismiss the perspective of the majority keep voters. A relist is needed to truly establish a consensus. Dege31 (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I should note that a reasonable case could be made for a redirect close - while one !vote was specifically against it (the nom), the keeps specifically included it as part of their reasoning and the other delete was undecided on the redirect. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The keep side mistakenly thought that NSPORTS excludes GNG (FAQ#1: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline), aside from also failing WP:NRV. Avilich (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read Bagumba's comment above and you'll see that editors disagree on this point. They aren't "mistaken", they disagree with your inteperpretation of the guidelines. NemesisAT (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not "our" interpretation - NSPORTS is very clear on the need to meet GNG. Obviously they're entitled to disagree with it, but since it's clearly disputed, the correct action then is to take it to VPP with a proposed change, not just misinterpret it. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NSPORTS contradicts itself however. Under NFOOTY, it states Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG., if all football players had to meet GNG, why would this sentence exist? There is a similar sentence under WP:NCRIC, WP:NCOLLATH, and WP:NEQUESTRIAN. WP:RLN even states Other players and personalities in the game are notable if they meet WP:GNG. If so, what was the point of the three bullet points above? The FAQ clearly should be changed to represent what the guideline actually says (it is clearly written as an alternative to GNG, IMO), and also to be consistent with WP:N which states either an SNG or GNG is enough for presumed notability. NemesisAT (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fallacy. Since NSPORT only offers a presumption of notability, there is no contradiction because sportspeople not meeting the criteria simply do not get a presumption. wjematherplease leave a message... 20:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But GNG also works on a "presumption", yet "meets GNG" is seen as a valid AfD argument. NemesisAT (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. In the case of sports, consensus is that GNG is usually (not always) sufficient, and NSPORT is almost always not a valid argument on its own. wjematherplease leave a message... 20:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus isn't a guideline or policy. consensus is that GNG is usually (not always) sufficient So in those cases where it is deemed insufficient, presumably that is by a local consensus. That is exactly what we have here, a local consensus that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. Lawrey should be kept, and yet you voted to endorse the close above?
If a local consensus can delete an article that passes GNG as you suggest (thus ignoring notability guidelines), then a local consensus can also allow an article to be kept when it doesn't meet GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It could, but there would have to be very strong arguments to support that position, and we have the opposite here. wjematherplease leave a message... 20:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't much room for interpretation. WP:N says it's either GNG or SNG, but if the relevant SNG also requires GNG, then it's GNG or GNG. Bagumba's walls of text all fail to refute this simple fact. Just because WP:N says that meeting an SNG alone is enough, it doesn't mean that NSPORTS gets to be elevated to anything beyond a predictor of whether GNG can be met, because that is its own stated purpose. A single source would have been enough to invalidate the delete closure and cause a relist, but the keep side wasn't able to do even that. Avilich (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The FAQ is clearly incorrect and does not summarise the guideline itself accurately. NSPORTS reads The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below.NemesisAT (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think there was absolutely no possibility for this to close as a redirect or similar upon relist? I don't want to come across as bludgeoning, but since the Xth GNG-NSPORTS discussion is unlikely to be fruitful, I'd like to see what some (new) proponents of endorse think about this. Dege31 (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RfD exists, and extending the discussion (relisting) would require that there be some credible evidence of notability (sources) that can be discussed. None in the keep side gave any. Do we really need more than 1 single week if no sources were found? All that a relist would accomplish is the AfD being polluted with more of this GNG vs NSPORTS stuff. Avilich (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Our job here isn't to be looking for sources to extend the discussion (if it was, we'd have undeleted the article to see how it is already sourced for the sake of this discussion). Our job is to make sure there was consensus in that discussion to delete the article (and I don't see it). Besides, there were already enough sources in the article to support a redirect - so what more sources do we need for that User:Avilich; they are plausible search terms. Nfitz (talk) 08:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you think so, then just go ahead and create a redirect...? Nobody's stopping you. In case I didn't make myself clear, I meant that a hypothetical relisted discussion would have the purpose of finding sources, not we at this DRv. Avilich (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
