Administrator instructions

Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.

Purpose

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

1. Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
2. Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Steps to list a new deletion review

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|reason=
}} ~~~~

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|article=
|reason=
}} ~~~~

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~

Commenting in a deletion review

Any editor may express his or her opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:

• Endorse the original closing decision; or
• Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
• List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
• Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
• Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
• Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.

Temporary undeletion

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

If a speedy deletion is appealed, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion). Any editor may then nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum. But such nomination is in no way required, if no editor sees reason to nominate.

Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)

Speedy closes

• Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.

• Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).

• Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".

Active discussions

16 January 2022

Hariharan Pillai Happy Aanu

Hariharan Pillai Happy Aanu (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closed on the basis of no sources. A full review by The Hindu here. Mention about production here. Mentions about box office failure here. Random other mentions here, here, here, and here. DareshMohan (talk) 02:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

13 January 2022

12 January 2022

Nicolás Atanes (closed)

Everything Will Be OK

Everything Will Be OK (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is an animated short film that was released theatrically in 2006 and was shortlisted for an Academy Award. It won the Grand Prize at the Sundance Film Festival. In 2012, Everything Will Be OK was edited into a longer feature film, along with its two sequels, under the new title "It's Such a Beautiful Day". The Wikipedia page for "Everything Will Be OK" has been nominated for deletion, to be merged instead with the page for the feature film version, "It's Such a Beautiful Day". I disagree with this deletion and merge. The short film has enough merit and notability to justify its own entry. It was released on its own DVD in 2007 and currently has over a million views as a standalone on YouTube. It's similar to a song like "Eleanor Rigby" having its own Wikipedia entry. This song could logically be merged with the page for the "Revolver" album but it's notable enough to merit its own entry. Ang-pdx (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• I'm surprised that the discussion was closed with so little participation: indeed, I relisted an AfD from this same "batch" just the other day. I would be inclined to relist this one as well, on the theory that it's analogous to a "soft delete" that can be revisited if contested. (On another topic, I'm not too thrilled about the idea of proposing merges at AfD in the first place: WP:CSK #1 arguably allows such discussions to be speedily closed as keep.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn to Relist as not enough input for a backdoor deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Relist would be the proper thing to do here, as the arguments above, if substantiated (and nothing in the AfD discussion suggests they wouldn't be) are excellent arguments for a standalone article. Jclemens (talk) 07:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn. This was a misuse of AfD. AfD is not Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers. AfD is not a suitable forum for disputed merging, or proposed merges where no one actually wants to do it. Interested editors should use Talk:Everything Will Be OK. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn. Insufficient consensus for a merge, and AFD should not have been raised in the first instance if deletion was not a potential outcome. Stifle (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. I disagree with SmokeyJoe's claim (to paraphrase, excuse me if I misunderstand) that it is never appropriate to go to AfD if you think merge is the best outcome: it's true that AfD discussions, in view of their time limit, can be problematic, but they can bring a broader perspective on the encyclopedic merit of the material than just the relevant talk page would. — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  It’s inappropriate to go AfD if deletion, even pseudo-deletion (Wikipedia:Pseudo-deletion by redirection), is not seriously on the table. The AfD should have been closed Wikipedia:Speedy keep criterion #1. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

11 January 2022

List of Simple series video games

List of Simple series video games (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe this list is relevant and a good extension of the main article, Simple (video game series). It has a reasonable scope (games released under one budget line by one company). A main argument is that most of the individual items aren't notable, but per WP:NOTESAL and many other video game list articles, this is evidently not a problem in most cases. I would be willing to work on the article and make sure it's properly formatted and referenced (one of the points in brought up in the AfD I agree with) if recreation is allowed. I would also be fine with it being restored to draftspace until proper references are added.

The votes in the deletion discussion were 3 for deletion to 1 for keeping, with one editor commenting but not voting. RoseCherry64 (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse. Could not have been closed any other way. Discuss improvements to Simple (video game series) at Talk:Simple (video game series), and I don’t think the is a case for at WP:SPINOUT of a list. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you endorsing that the entire list (90k and that's without references, would likely be larger after I finish improving it) should be at the Simple page and not a separate page?

I also don't understand the alternate process, if I start a RfC at the Simple talk page about recreating the deleted list article and the RfC finds consensus to do so, would I just show the RfC to an administrator and they would restore the page regardless of it being deleted through AfD? RoseCherry64 (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I start with simple crude checks. Simple (video game series) is a short page, and you appear to have no edit history there. Talk:Simple (video game series) has a couple of posts from 14-15 years ago. You are advocating to reverse an AfD consensus for a list WP:SPINOUT that is completely unjustified. There is not justification in launching an RfC when there is not even a first talk page post. If no one answers, use WP:3O.

I suggest that you first work on improving Simple (video game series), especially work to add content on notable example games. Only when the article displays external interest on many of the games is there reason to think there is encyclopedic interest in the list of all the games.

I see external lists, eg 1, 2. This are directory lists, not notable standalone lists (see WP:LISTN). A separate page for a list will require a WP:SPINOUT justification and that most of the entries are bluelinked. I don't see you managing that.

You could ask for the deleted list to be REFUNDED to draftspace, but do that by asking the deleting admin, or at WP:REFUND, but that request is a very different thing to alleging that the AfD was closed wrong. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I don't know where to go. I really have no idea where to start. I came across a page other editors poured a lot of effort into and that I have had a lot of use for being deleted and I spent some time looking how I could save it. If I need to expand or even rewrite the Simple article for this separate article to be considered, I'll do it. Since it got deleted through AfD, I figured REFUND is not applicable and I wanted to somehow get consensus about the article being reintroduced, so that it doesn't get speedily deleted for being a reposted article deleted through AfD.

However, I am really curious about the directory list requiring blue links thing. Is there a WP policy about this? Are lists like List of DSiWare games (North America) (most of the entries not having articles) considered standalone lists or directory lists?

Also, the two pages you linked are just WP mirrors of the deleted page. RoseCherry64 (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Other stuff exists. These other lists may be deleted yet. Read WP:NLIST, and links from there, and consider that it was unfortunate that you tried to improve something that was hopeless. If you are really interested in the topic, surely you can find something to improve the parent article. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but you didn't really answer my two questions. Is the myriad of video game lists directory lists or stand-alone lists? Is blue links really required for such lists (linking a guideline that outright says "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable" makes me think "no")? RoseCherry64 (talk) 09:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

That’s ok, I didn’t answer because I am not sure. I got pretty deep into Wikipedia-Notabily theory, but I’m not so confident about lists. So let me give my best guesses. “Directory” is a reference to WP:NOTDIRECTORY. “Stand-alone” is just whether it is its own article, as opposed to a list in an article.

The first sort of list is a list that is notable as a list, eg List of regicides of Charles I, an historic actual literal “list”. The entries don’t have to be blue linked, but to keep things confusing, they usually all are.

The next sorts of lists are justified as navigation tools. See WP:CLS. The assumption is that every entry is a link to somewhere else.

The myriad of video games lists I guess are contentious. They are generally not ok, unless reliable independent sources publish and discuss the list. This tends to happen of popular singers’ discography, and might happen for a video game series. I am not aware of clear rules.

Some lists may be justified as being important content, but are shifted from the main article into a list article justified by WP:SPINOUT. WP:SPINOUT is never justified if the parent article is brief.

Back to your question, Does every entry has to be blue linked? I suspect that it might be only that most entries are bluelinked. I don’t know if there is such a rule written down somewhere. If the group or set is notable, that sounds like the list is notable, which means the entries don’t have to be bluelinked. I don’t think the list of simple video games is notable, and if you think it is, you need to show independent reliable sources that discuss, in depth, the list. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Gour Govinda Swami

Gour Govinda Swami (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Multiple mentions in independent reliable sources (see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]). More than satisfies WP:GNG. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Dāsānudāsa: Did you ask the closer to reconsider, first? I couldn't see so on their talk page, but wasn't sure if you did so elsewhere Nosebagbear (talk) 12:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realise I was supposed to! This is my first deletion review request. I notified them of this discussion, but didn't ask for a review from them first, no. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 12:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse based on the AfD. Advise the nom to ask the closer for a WP:REFUND to draftspace, to attend to the AfD criticism of sources, highlight the WP:THREE best, and ask again. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse as a correct close by the closer, and Allow Re-Creation in Draft. Does the request for undelete the article go to the closer (as SmokeyJoe appears to be saying), or does the requester simply make the request at Requests for Undeletion, where it will be serviced by whatever administrator is working that queue? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  Always ask the closer first, especially if as recent as it was, a week ago, and definitely if the thrust of the question is that the deletion was a mistake.

  There is no way WP:REFUND will grant a request to refund to mainspace over a recent AfD consensus to delete. They will probably Userfy or Draftify, if the applicant accepts the deletion but says there are new better sources. It’s then up to the deleting admin, of AfC reviewers, to judge whether the reason for deletion has been overcome.

  Bold recreation in mainspace is not ok under six months since the AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  • I agree with SmokeyJoe's statement of what constitutes good practice. DGG ( talk ) 10:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• I don't agree that there is an obligation to approach the closer about draftification, since automatic or unreasonable refusals to create drafts are a thing and once they have been made and refused, REFUND goes slower and has some risk of refusal. People who are willing to work within the AfC process should feel free either to approach the closer or REFUND, whichever they feel more comfortable with. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse sound close, allow recreation as draft at REFUND if that is requested, per Robert McClenon. A straight delete-based-on-GNG-failure AfD is no reason to block AfC. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Pete Vainowski

Pete Vainowski (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Pete Vainowski was a star American football lineman from the 1920s to the early 1930s. He played at least nine seasons professionally, including one game in the National Football League (NFL) during 1926, thus satisfying NGRIDIRON, which states a player is presumed notable if they have played in the NFL.

Despite this, Vainowski was deleted in an AFD in which there were 8 keeps compared to just three deletes, marking the only time in Wikipedia's 20+ year history that a player in one of the "Big Four Leagues" (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL) was denied of an article when his professional career was known (excluding cases in MLB when the player had an unknown given name).

Vainowski was not a "sub-stub" existing for years without expansion. The article was in excellent shape at the time of deletion, and included over 15 references and was 7,000+ bytes. Keep !voter Cbl62 said in the discussion, "Passes WP:NGRIDIRON. This is not a sub-stub that has existed for five or ten years without any development. The article has existed for barely a year and should be given time to develop further -- the article has grown eight fold (from 200 characters of narrative text to more than 1,650) in the day since the nomination."

Unlike soccer/association football, in which players with one appearance in 50+ different leagues are routinely deleted after not even coming close to GNG, American football is different; NGRIDIRON is very tightly focused. As Cbl62 worded it: "The only players from the years prior to World War II who qualify for a presumption of notability are those from the NFL from 1921 to 1939. This in stark contrast to rugby and soccer, where we have SNGs that purport to establish notability for tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands?) of players who appeared in as little as one game in dozens of leagues at varying levels (top of the pyramid and on down to the middle of the pyramid) and for more than two centuries of competition. The rugby and soccer SNGs have resulted in a plethora of sub-stubs and have drawn the ire of many editors. While some sports have failed to properly tailor their SNGs, American football is not one of those sports. NGRIDIRON was tightly focused already, and in the past year we have narrowed it even further by eliminating the Arena Football League and squashing efforts to add the World Football League." In fact, the only leagues that pass NGRIDIRON are the Canadian Football League, National Football League, American Football League and All-America Football Conference (both of which merged into the NFL), and the United States Football League.

This is an encyclopedia, so why would we exclude an article on someone who meets the criteria of inclusion and has a high-quality page? This is a National Football League player article with over 15 references and a 7,000+ byte page. In addition to having played one game in a NGRIDIRON-satisfying league, Vainowski also played college football at Loyola and at least nine seasons professionally.

Furthermore, although source-wise there was not much significant coverage, there is a very reasonable presumption that significant coverage exists. As for coverage of that period and prior, it can be very difficult to find, as not all of it is online. Another issue with older coverage that I previously brought up in the discussion is that Newspapers.com has difficulty identifying results from that time, so even if it did contain the newspapers that significantly covered Vainowski, results may not show up through a simple search.

Additionally, although I know that the number of !votes does not matter, to see a "rough consensus" of "delete" in that discussion, you would have to literally get rid of every single "keep" !vote, which is not an accurate closure when they have policy-based arguments. All of the keep !votes cited NGRIDIRON, which states a topic is “presumed notable” if they have played in the NFL, CFL, USFL, AAFC, or AFL. Therefore, since he is "presumed notable," I do not see a reason to get rid of the article.

Several different editors have agreed that it was a bad closure (including two admins), which in addition to my reasons stated above, convince me that the Pete Vainowski AFD should be overturned from "delete" to "keep."

Pinging discussion !voters: @Cbl62: @Editorofthewiki: @Rlendog: @Nosebagbear: @Metropolitan90: @Curbon7: @JonnyDKeen: @Lepricavark: @JoelleJay: @Onel5969: BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn and keep. To the extent that there was a consensus in the AfD discussion, it was in favor of keeping rather than deleting (and, by implication, relying upon WP:NGRIDIRON rather than failing to accept its presumption of notability). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn to keep. WP:NSPORT is pretty clear that it is an or with the GNG, which is what the WP:N itself says. Even if Sandstein disagrees with this, the controlling policy is WP:NHC "If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy." Jclemens (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't think that this is a case where two guidelines conflict and the question arises which one should apply. As explained below, the guidelines NGRIDIRON and GNG are compatible in my view, because NGRIDIRON establishes a presumption of notability that is nonetheless rebuttable (and was rebutted here) at AfD. Sandstein 07:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • NSPORT must not be at all clear, as what it says is expressly different from the above. "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline." (Emph added.) If the intent were "pass either NSPORT (or NGRIDIRON here in particular) or GNG", it should have said exactly the opposite. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  NSPORT doesn't actually contradict itself/GNG. From its FAQs at the top of the page:

  Q5: The second sentence in the guideline says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Does this mean that the general notability guideline doesn't have to be met?
  A5: No; as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. This sentence is just emphasizing that the article must always cite reliable sources to support a claim of meeting Wikipedia's notability standards, whether it is the criteria set by the sports-specific notability guidelines, or the general notability guideline.

  Here is my further explanation of that aspect of NSPORT in the AfD:

  Per NSPORT: 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. In other words, the purpose of the SNG is so mass article creators can pad their stats quicker an article may be in mainspace sourced only to refs that verify the subject meets the SNG, such as databases, without the threat of immediate A7 deletion or AfD challenge. Other biographies with such sourcing should very quickly attract scrutiny from NPP/AfC reviewers/general patrolling editors, but if the SportsRef Stamp of Approval is there editors are much less likely to put in the effort to investigate whether the subject actually meets GNG. It also gives editors a bit more leeway with how long they can take to find offline/untranslated/etc. SIGCOV. But once notability is challenged, those who want to retain the article are expected to produce GNG sourcing or provide a very credible claim that SIGCOV exists (like pointing to a specific book that isn't accessible online but would be expected to contain adequate coverage). It seems editors trust GRIDIRON's predictive accuracy enough that NFL players are extremely rare AfD targets, but that doesn't mean they all actually meet GNG.

  This is why the "or" exists in the second sentence. JoelleJay (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Having reviewed the article itself and the excuses why a clear numerical consensus should be overturned as supposedly 'not policy compliant,' I remain unconvinced. Sandstein, I assess your close as failing to comply with half of WP:DGfA:
    • "2. Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants."
    • "4. When in doubt, don't delete."

  I don't see any logical way you didn't violate at least one: if you didn't have any doubts about the deletion, then you have disregarded the judgments of the (numerically superior) keep !voters. This is becoming a pattern of behavior inconsistent with deletion policy. While I appreciate your willingness to discuss your reasoning, your repeated failure to accept that consensus can differ and modify your pattern of closing deletion debates in accord with the community's wishes is concerning. Please do better in the future. Jclemens (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• As closer, I remain of the view that the closure was correct. The above comments and the "keep" opinions at AfD would interpret the provision of NGRIDIRON that a player at a certain level is "presumed notable" to read as "is notable". But that is not what the guideline says. If the community had been of the view that any player at a certain level should be included irrespective of whether sources exist, the community would have written the guideline to read "is notable". But instead, they chose to establish only a presumption of notability, which implies that this presumption is rebuttable. And this means, in my view, that a valid argument at AfD must address whether or not that presumption has been rebutted in any individual case in which notability is challenged. That means that a valid "keep" opinion in this AfD would have had to cite sources that establish this player's notability in order to show that the guideline's presumption does hold in this case, rather than merely repeating the presumption. But most "keep" opinions in this AfDs failed to do so. As AfD closer, I am required to give less weight to opinions that do not provide valid arguments in the light of our guidelines and policies, which is what I did here by giving less weight to the (in my view) poorly argued "keep" opinions. Sandstein 07:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Watching but I have no opinion for now. Curbon7 (talk) 08:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment (As I !voted, and I try to discourage participant DRV !votes). This is a clearcut example of votes being disregarded because they weren't being backed up by policy. None advocated an IAR position, just that Gridiron was sufficient. NHC is only the case where the pags do not themselves designate a precedence line. Everything else is said better by Sandstein directly above. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

My extended comments at the AfD do, in fact, amount to an IAR position. Cbl62 (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• More than 40% of Wikipedia's biographies concern sportspeople, and the reason why our encyclopaedia is awash with sports-related bios is because the sports notability SNGs are crazy inclusive. NGRIDIRON certainly is. But we have other rules that put a duty on sysops to delete biographical articles that aren't impeccably sourced, and rightly so. For these reasons I concur with the decision to delete. We do not have high quality independent sources of biographical information on this person so we can't permit a biography to exist.—S Marshall T/C 09:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Your comments (including "awash" and "crazy") suggest an antisports bias that may be coloring your opinion. As for NGRIDIRON being "crazy inclusive", I respectfully disagree. Unlike cricket, association football, rugby, and other sports, NGRIDIRON is limited to those who played in the top tier and does not include second- and third-tier professional leagues. Indeed, we have tightened NGRIDIRON even further over the past year, eliminating Arena Football League and rejecting a proposal to add World Football League. (A proposal (mine actually) to limit the guideline to those who played at least two games unfortunately failed to reach consensus.) Cbl62 (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

As of the time of typing, Category:English chemists has 243 articles. Category:English physicists has 261. Category:English lawyers has 333, and Category:British Army generals has 2,549 (reflecting, no doubt, the diligent efforts of our sterling military history Wikiproject.) But in sports, Category:English footballers contains 23,226 articles. Category:English cricketers contains 13,580. How can this be? Is it because English football is ten thousand times as important as English chemistry? Are we, as a nation, perhaps, five or six times more important for our cricketing accomplishments than our military campaigns? Or could it just possibly be, do you think, that our sports notability guidelines might be ludicrously inclusive?—S Marshall T/C 01:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

What about Category:English players of American football, which contains just 47 players? Is that, "crazy inclusive"? BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. It's a microscopically niche sport here with zero following.—S Marshall T/C 01:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

[6]. That's about 8% that are fairly avid fans if it's right. Not a huge percent, but not nothing either. Hobit (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Intriguing. I'll modify my earlier position to say that although we have a microscopically small number of players, teams, or pitches, it seems that some people who reside in England have watched it on late night TV during lockdown.—S Marshall T/C 10:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

:-) Hobit (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

:-) It'll likely tick back down again as proper football resumes in earnest.—S Marshall T/C 00:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@S Marshall: Again, your comments belie an anti-sports bias. You believe that there should be more articles on chemists and physicists and fewer articles on athletes. That's your subjective value judgment, but your subjective belief is not how encyclopedic notability is determined. Rather, encyclopedic notability (i.e., WP:GNG) is determined by the coverage a person/topic receives. Like it or not, most people prefer to spend their free time reading about athletes (and people who I may consider to be trivial like "influencers") than they do about chemists and physicists. Given how GNG works, coverage determines notability, and public interest determines what gets covered. We do NOT have a notability system under which the "smart" people decide what the "common" people should read or find interesting. Accordingly, it is entirely right, proper, and appropriate that Wikipedia has far more articles on athletes than chemists and physicists. If you believe this system is "crazy" or "ludicrous", then your real quarrel is with how encyclopedic notability is determined. Cbl62 (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

By "belie", I expect you mean "betray". Yes, I do believe that it's wildly disproportionate to have 261 articles about physicists and 23,226 articles about footballers. I wholeheartedly agree with you when you say that encyclopaedic notability should be the standard and the GNG should apply to everyone, and I very much welcome this statement from a pro-sports editor. I do hope this means that you have come agree with me that we should strictly apply the GNG to all sportspeople, and therefore deprecate all the special pleading in NSPORTS and its many sub-guidelines?—S Marshall T/C 14:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

You expect correctly ... Would you agree that GNG should govern all -- including academics? So how about deprecating NACADEMIC as well? Cbl62 (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Just clicked on you profile and am surprised ... for some reason, I'd always assumed you looked more like Kristen Bell -- Forgetting Sarah Marshall ... a bit disappointing ;) Cbl62 (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Tragically, I'm not a hottie.  :-) Yes, the GNG should govern the notability of every topic and particularly every biography of a living person, and yes, I have for years advocated that the GNG should trump SNGs in all cases. I think that if we required two high-quality indepth sources for every article then the encyclopaedia would be a better place. I also think that those websites that reduce to tables of sports results are not acceptable sources for biographies.—S Marshall T/C 16:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse - while I stated my opinion on why it should be kept, which was based solely on WP:NGRIDIRON, GNG does trump SNGs. I understand Sandstein's reasoning, especially in light of S Marshall's comments above. In past years, simply establishing that something met a particular SNG was good enough, but that's been changing over the past 3 years or so. We've seen it in regards to GEOLAND, NCRIC, NBROADCAST, SCHOOLOUTCOMES and others. One SNG, NSOLDIER, was even deprecated. However, there are other SNGs which continue to trump GNG at AfD discussions, such as NSCHOLAR and NAUTHOR. And it all depends on which Admin does the close, everybody's human, and different folks will reach different conclusions based on the same evidence. But those are broader discussions. Sandstein's close, while I disagree with it, was clearly sound. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn like it or not, the longstanding precedent in this topic area is to retain articles that pass the SNG. The consensus at this AfD was consistent with that precedent. I understand that some editors are not happy with the prevalence of sports articles on the 'pedia, but a !supervote is not an appropriate way to spark change. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  In the last year or so a very strong precedent has been established that athletes meeting a sub-guideline of NSPORT but not GNG are not immune to deletion. AfDs where this has been the case and there has been substantial discussion and the closer reiterated NSPORT's relationship to GNG are spread across football (see closes by Fenix down 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; and by Ritchie333, and Vanamonde), cricket (see closes by Randykitty 1, 2, 3; and by Scottywong, Nosebagbear, Black Kite, Barkeep49, and Dennis Brown), MMA (see closes by Nosebagbear and Daniel), rugby (see close by Seraphimblade), and baseball (see closes by Ritchie333 and David Gerard). At this point the prevailing consensus (as supported by the wording of NSPORT itself as well as a 2017 RfC) is for closers to give little weight to !votes that merely state a subject meets a sport-specific guideline, and sometimes that means a close is against numerical consensus. JoelleJay (talk) 03:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus. If the logic in the close is right, then arguments based on WP:NSPORTS (or, for that matter, most other SNGs) are essentially worthless the minute someone brings up the GNG, and the close doesn't make sense otherwise. This isn't the case and isn't in keeping with the community's view of SNGs. The close is also founded on the view that since nobody has found coverage passing the GNG then we have to assume the subject doesn't pass the GNG, which is incorrect. WP:NSPORTS is intended to indicate when GNG-passing coverage is likely to exist, and arguments based on sources being likely to exist are legitimate. WP:N says If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. The discussion could certainly have decided that sources aren't likely to exist and that the article should be deleted, but I don't think there was a clear consensus on that point, and that's a decision for the participants rather than the closer. Hut 8.5 13:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I would differ from this. Our verifiability policy says, at WP:BURDEN, that information that's been challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable source. Raising an AFD is a challenge; so per policy, only an inline citation to a reliable source will suffice. My position is that this "presumption" that sources exist cannot withstand such a clear passage in core policy.—S Marshall T/C 13:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't believe there's any verifiability issue here - there doesn't seem to be any claim that the information in the article isn't verifiable to reliable published sources, and it had plenty of inline citations (mostly to contemporary newspapers). The argument for deletion was that there aren't any sources which devote significant coverage to the subject. That's not found in WP:V, it comes from WP:GNG, which isn't core policy. Hut 8.5 17:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  Cbl62 and to an extent Rlendog and Onel are essentially the only keep participants who explicitly argue SIGCOV sources are still likely to exist (rather than just asserting "meets NGRIDIRON" or "we've never deleted an NFL player before"). So if we only consider !votes that address this point, the consensus is actually numerically on the side of delete (where such (lack of) coverage is noted).

  I think it's also relevant to point out Geschichte's comment could be interpreted as an argument in favor of deletion, which brings the tally to 8k 5d. JoelleJay (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  The point of NSPORTS (including NGRIDIRON) is to indicate when sources are likely to exist, I don't think it's a problem that not all comments spelled this out. Several of the Delete comments didn't explicitly mention SIGCOV either and just referenced the GNG, I don't think that's a problem either. Hut 8.5 19:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn, I appreciate the point that the closing admin made and I do think that there needs to be a bigger discussion on WP:GRIDIRON, but Hut 8.5 and others make compelling points that deletion was not applied appropriately in this case. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Hi Gonzo, out of interest, how would you see this as distinct from "deletion was applied correctly, but a discussion should be had as to whether gridiron should be exempt from the NSPORTS norm?" What's the deciding factor (in terms of assessing policy-backed consensus/DRV review)? Nosebagbear (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Nosebagbear, I think that we are constrained by our current policy and guidelines. So was this deletion applied correctly based on our current policies/guidelines? I don't think so. Should someone have a presumption of notability just because they played in the NFL, especially when they played during the early years of the NFL when it wasn't the same international league it is today. I don't know; I think that discussion should occur. Hope that makes sense. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Hut 8.5 appears to be be arguing that all of NSPORTS is "essentially worthless" -- as it's actually written, I've seen no argument made that the close interpreted it other than that. Just the "precedent" differs (see also: WP:OTHERSTUFF) and that NGRIDIRON is a special case, on the basis that it "only" has 32 teams with 53-person rosters in a single country. (In practice extending even beyond that, as players that have only ever been on an NFL practice are regularly declared to be obviously notable start-class articles.) That's sharply at variance from being "constrained by our current policy and guidelines", as far as I can tell. What's more, it rests on at least two different interpretations of what those guidelines should be, or should be read as being. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
        • I'm not arguing that NSPORTS is essentially worthless, that's my paraphrase of what the close was saying ("If the logic in the close is right..."). I don't agree with it. Hut 8.5 17:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
          • The "logic in the close" is literally just the text of what NSPORTS very clearly and specifically says. So either you're arguing for some other interpretation of NSPORTS that's too subtle for me to see (and that you didn't set out), that it should say something else (which you didn't specify), or that we should IAR in this case, and essentially in every case that this clause of NSPORTS applies to. Can you reconcile those in some way? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn - the consensus of the discussion was to keep based on NGRIDIRON's presumption of notability. The closer says that that presumption of notability was "rebutted." It was not. Perhaps in the case of a modern day player if no additional sources were found online one could say that the presumption of notability was rebutted. But for a century old topic, saying that no additional sources were quickly located on the internet is hardly a rebuttal to the presumption that sources existed 90 or 100 years ago. In fact, rebutting the presumption would be virtually impossible, since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And there is no reason that should be a problem, and one reason that NGRIDIRON formed a consensus that players with even one NFL game should be presumed notable. And while I think it is "virtually impossible" to rebut the presumption for a very old player, it is not necessarily impossible - see the case of Lewis (baseball), which rebutted the similar presumption for NBASE. But it is very difficult to rebut such a presumption and should be, and no reason to delete (this isn't even a BLP case) and override NGIRDIRON just because of that. Rlendog (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Then that's where we disagree. In my view, if no appropriate sources can be found in a well-attended 7-day AfD, then there is a more than sufficient likelihood that the sources do not exist and the presumption of notability is rebutted. Otherwise, the presumption would be all but impossible to rebut, and would not be a presumption at all. That would be at odds with our core policy WP:V, which requires us, as pointed out by S Marshall above, to delete content that cannot be verified through reliable sources. Sandstein 16:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Actually, the article was completely verified (with 15+ references), as I stated in my DRV rationale. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Yes, I noted the repeated references to number of bytes and numbers of references. Do any of them amount to WP:SIGCOV? Because if you're claiming the article does meet the GNG, then this entire "NGRIDIRON should trump GNG" discussion is surely at cross-purposes and unnecessary. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    • You and S Marshall are confusing verifiability and notability. The article had plenty of citations to third-party reliable sources, as required by WP:V. The argument for deletion was that the subject doesn't have significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. That's based on WP:GNG, and only the GNG. The GNG is not a core policy, it's not even a policy. It may well be your "view" that if sources don't turn up during an AfD then they probably don't exist, but as a closer you aren't imposing your "view" on the discussion. Hut 8.5 17:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
      • I don't feel confused. I feel as if we're under a duty to base biographies on high-quality independent sources that give sufficient biographical information to write a biographical article, and sources that meet that requirement would always amount to "significant coverage".—S Marshall T/C 19:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Do you feel that when the guideline page says "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline," that should be read as "Assume they meet GNG unless and until proven otherwise by exhaustive search"? Because if that's the intended reading, it'd be a deuced sight clearer and more helpful to editors for it to say so in terms. (Whether in general for NSPORTS, or as the Wikiproject seems to feel NGRIDIRON is in some way a higher standard and their articles are of greater inherent notability than other top-level professional sports -- specific to NFL and precursors.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn If the claim that the subject meets a SNG, the primary question is to verify that the subject actually meets the GNG (in this case, did the subject play a game in the NFL). As Hut mentioned, the SNGs provide a presumption of notability. That all said, if there is concern that the SNG does not work, that not all subjects in the class receive significant coverage, then we ought to reopen (to tighten up) the SNG. I think the closer did not properly apply the SNG to this case. --Enos733 (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • It's a presumption, not an assertion. It doesn't say "trust us, these will all pass GNG", it says they must separately and additionally pass GNG. Several editors seem to believe that lots of NSPORTS-threshold-passing subjects are indeed non-notable -- but not the ones from their sport, of course, it's all the others that're causing the problem! I think the question is -- and what the guideline fails to set out -- is how this "presumption" should be operationalised. Does it shift the threshold of notability as to be determined by GNG? Does it keep the notability requirement the same, but provide a "stay of execution" on the article from deletion while those required additional sources are sought? Does it void its own text and make this presumed notability operationally permanent, with GNG never having to be met at all? The arguments here seem to interpret it wildly differently which I think argues for a more specific wording indicating which of the above -- or other possibilities entirely -- is intended to be followed. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment. A couple things I want to note. A) NSPORT explicitly mentions in at least three places that it does not confer notability directly and that GNG must be met. B) In my opinion, the argument that SIGCOV might exist somewhere was sufficiently rebutted. I should preface this by saying there are cases where non-SIGCOV material is discovered during AfD that I consider reasonable enough evidence for the existence of offline SIGCOV to strike or switch my !vote. But in the case of Vainowski I sincerely do not think an encyclopedic biography is possible. For one, the bulk of the article was this paragraph:

No one besides a wikipedia editor has made a connection between these Vainowskis and our Pete; they're probably the same person but Struck since an updated version of the article had verified these were the same people the mentions are so brief (trivial, even) that, on top of being original research, their DUEness is also questionable. Even worse, there were just two sources that had a full name: two small local obits (submitted by the family) from the 1950s that describe his career at a telephone company but don't even mention he played football. Either this was a different Pete S Vainowski, or Vainowski/his family did not consider his time in the NFL important enough for even a single clause in his obituary. Then there's the fact that someone wrote in to a newspaper in ~1935 asking about his team's composition in 1926 and a journalist who was seemingly in contact with the team's manager said there wasn't any further info on players that season because the manager admitted he kept poor records. Keep in mind newspapers curated thousands of clippings from other newspapers on specific topics, so if more details existed on that team's entire season in contemporary reports it's very likely they would have found something in their archives. They did not, and from that I believe we can reasonably assume significant or even trivial coverage does not exist for all individual NFL players in this time period. JoelleJay (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Curbon7, Curbon7, Enos733, Hut 8.5, Gonzo fan2007, Jclemens, Lepricavark, and Metropolitan90: JoelleJay (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually that paragraph you listed as the "bulk of the article" was not in the page at the time of deletion, as I completely re-wrote the article when Pro-Football-Reference verified them as the same person. Also, I think your statement of "I believe we can reasonably assume significant or even trivial coverage does not exist for all individual NFL players in this time period." is absolute nonsense. For example, the other day, I randomly picked a few 1920s one-gamers (you're saying all!?) to make an article of, Karl Thielscher, Shirley Brick, Carl Etelman, Ching Hammill, and got each of them in to excellent shape (and two at DYK). BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, the 1926 Louisville Colonels season was covered in-depth, as a Newspapers.com search in 1926 of "Louisville Colonels" brings up... 24,900 results (see [7]). BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I did not say no NFL players in this time had SIGCOV. I said we can't assume it exists for all of them. And in my opinion biographies should consist mainly of material that is encyclopedic -- info should adhere to WP:NOT and WP:DUE and not contain every single detail that can be found on a person. If the only or even primary info that can be found comes from contemporary news articles reporting routine events, especially stuff that's only reported by one outlet, then the topic runs afoul of WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:NOTNEWS. I haven't seen a single source for Vainowski that goes beyond even trivial coverage in game recaps. JoelleJay (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I amended my comment to reflect his being linked to each of those teams. Not that those additions were more than passing mentions anyway. JoelleJay (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

JoelleJay, is there a specific purpose of your ping? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, with regards to this specific close: in the last year there have been dozens (hundreds?) of deletions of athletes who met an NSPORT SSG but not GNG/NSPORT itself and had a numerically close enough !vote differential that the closer left a remark explicitly referencing (participants' arguments on) NSPORT's relationship to GNG. This has been across a wide array of professional sports with numerous different closing admins. So Sandstein's close is not at all out of the ordinary, nor is his interpretation of the PAGs idiosyncratic. JoelleJay (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse. A "presumption of notability" is just that -- a presumption. It does not mean anyone who meets the criteria is automatically notable. To quote WP:NSPORT, "meeting of any of these [sport-specific] criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." In this case, there are apparently no sources to establish this individual's notability, so it should be deleted. Calidum 19:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment for those interested in seeing the last version of the article before deletion: User:Gonzo fan2007/Pete Vainowski. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse per above, sports SNGs provide a presumption of notability that can be defeated through AFD. That is what happened here. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn. Sourcing was quality and a consensus to keep was evident. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 20:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Which sources provided even WP:BASIC coverage? JoelleJay (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Can we have a temp. undelete please? The article and its sources are relevant to the AfD and some of the points raised at DRV. Hobit (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Hobit: A user has linked the last version prior to deletion just above. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Hobit (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn Admittedly I'm biased, but I feel like the keep arguments were solid. Enough was available about Vainowski that a decent article could be written, certainly not a substub. I was actually considering opening this DRV soon anyay. Sandstein's close was a SUPERVOTE. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Not according to WP:SUPERVOTE it's not. "It should be noted that consensus discussions (including XfDs and RfCs) are not really polls. For example, if an XfD discussion has more "keeps" than "deletes" but the "deletes" are grounded in policy and the "keeps" are of the WP:ILIKEIT variety (or conversely if the deletes say WP:ITSCRUFT and the "keeps" are grounded in policy), it's not a "supervote" to close in accordance with a significant minority opinion." 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Sources aren't great, but well past WP:V. I don't see how a consensus can be found for deletion in that discussion. overturn to NC. Hobit (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I can see the sources offered verify the statements made. But Verifiability also entails notability, which explicitly gets us right back to WP:GNG. Do you feel it meets that standard? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
    • No, WP:V and WP:N are quite different. I'm not sure what point you're making. Hobit (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
      • You are right that they're different but that's actually an issue - an article can have statements that are all verifiable without actually managing to make the article notable. Verifiability is necessary, but not sufficient. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
        • Quote from WP:V: "Notability; Further information: Wikipedia:Notability; If no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it (i.e., the topic is not notable)." Hence the explicit policy basis for deletion, even if all the contents are cited (with below notability-threshold sources, as here). 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
          • Yes, WP:V references WP:N, but they are still different. "Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations". This article, when deleted, met that bar. Hobit (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
            • It met the bar of that portion of WP:V, sure. But what about the part that I quoted? Is that merely a "reference" to WP:N (and hence to the GNG), and not a clear statement in policy that it must satisfy that too? It too is exceptionally poorly written, if that's the meaning we're to take from it! Do you feel that this article in fact meets GNG, or establishes notability by some other route? Or that the AfD debate (or this one) established a "consensus" to ignore that? Because that's not really in line with our policy on what "consensus" means, either. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• I think that at the core of this debate, there's a basic logical issue. NSPORTS and its many sub-guidelines create a "presumption" that sources exist. Any "presumption" is inherently rebuttable, right? If it isn't rebuttable, then it is not, in any meaningful sense, a presumption. So how can it be rebutted? In other words, is it up to the "keep" side to produce the decent sources that they claim must exist, or is it up to the "delete" side to prove that decent sources don't exist? And if so, how can they do that?—S Marshall T/C 10:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • To me there are three issues. #1 Is it likely, with something this old, that paper sources exist? The answer is "probably". #2 Do I personally think we should have this article? I'd lean toward yes because I see no harm (not a BLP or otherwise likely to cause problems) and I think Wikipedia should generally cover older things when we can. #3 and most importantly, can local consensus override a broader one? And that's a clear yes IMO. That's the whole point of WP:IAR. Numbers do matter and here the local consensus was clearly going one way. If that many people said "keep, IAR" compared to "delete, WP:N" I'd say we'd be at NC. I don't think we are less than NC now. But my bar for where IAR kicks in is generally lower than most. YMMV. Hobit (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
    • #1 WP:MUSTBESOURCES. #2 WP:NOHARM. #3 WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Alvaldi (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
      • I think WP:CLOSEAFD (second bullet) is probably the stronger argument than your links. But all that said, the whole point of WP:IAR is that sometimes the rules are wrong. Are they wrong here? I'd say this is a type of article we should have. NOHARM is really the center of inclusionism vs deletionism (as the link states). I personally think this type of article is fine--every single point is verified and I'm not worried about spam or BLP issues creeping into it. But I agree with you my view is in the minority. Hobit (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
        • I think the harm done is to further ratchet the "other stuff" process of ad hoc inclusion. There's about a thousand more where that came from from the NFL alone, and if other sports disagree with the NFL Wikiproject's thesis that they're an especially rigorous special case, replicate that for any or all of the others. If it's desired to get to the point where NSPORT (or some subset) is sufficient in itself (perhaps with a dash of trivial mentions in verifiable sources) for inclusion, better to say so explicitly, rather than having a swiss cheese of special pleading. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
          • I'd be happy if we tried to do something like that for pre-WWII biographies (not just sports), recognizing that folks who did the same things now as then see a lot more coverage. Just as we often raise the bar GNG for people who don't meet the SNG (college athletes for example commonly need to meet a higher standard than just two sources about them), I'd like to see us lower the bar for older (pre WWII) BIOs that meet the SNG. Hobit (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
            • Seems a little ad hoc to me. Does that period suffer from a huge amount of lost sources, or were those people just less "inherently" notable in their day, and are merely being seen otherwise through a zeal in hindsight about a multi-$billion industry? Hard to determine that objectively, especially by way of a cutoff date. But I'd rather see something on those lines than swiss-cheese exceptions. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

        The only possible argument I can see for IAR is that an encyclopedia "should" have a standalone article on every single NFL player; that having this unlinked name in a season's roster is specifically damaging our coverage of the topic. We certainly can't make the argument that the trivial mentions currently in the article are of encyclopedic value, else we'd allow standalones for everyone ever listed on a sports page. And it's hard to see how IAR could be applied on the basis that coverage "probably does exist" when even local papers barely ever list his first initial and his own obituary doesn't mention playing football; moreover, at what point would anyone agree that SIGCOV doesn't exist or that enough time has passed that editors "should" have found sources by now? So we're left with the completionist argument that having a standalone for every NFL player provides more benefit than its subverting WP:NOT causes harm. In which case I would argue, why NFL players and not any other group of people who may have a few members that don't meet GNG? Why should this exception be more attainable for athletes (by virtue of NSPORT's "presumptions") than for artists or musicians or politicians, who have to demonstrate GNG from the start and don't get extra time to add refs? JoelleJay (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse WP:NSPORT, which NGRIDIRON is a sub-guideline of, makes it very clear that all articles must provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Nobody has been able to provide these sources. How is he a notable person if nobody took note? Alvaldi (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse an absolutely correct application of policy and of the long-standing consensus on how notability policies apply in practice. WP:NRVE, and if the keep !votes did not present such sources (or much more besides what appears special pleading), then they can safely be discounted: even NSPORTS explicitly states that Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept.. I'll also note that policy and guidelines are not unbreakable laws, and that the spirit and the principle (in this case, that there should be proper sources to write an actual article which meets V, NPOV and NOR, and not just database entries) are very much more important and convincing than the legalistic interpretation of NGRIDIRON (which, as the closer correctly indicated, is but a rebuttable presumption) made by some of those arguing for overturning. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist - If a majority of participants are appealing to an SNG that explictly defers to the GNG in the false belief that this contradicts the GNG, this doesn't mean they can simply be disregarded. On the contrary, they may typically be implicitly making the argument that some coverage on the topic is appropriate, as Cbl62 explicitly did "it still represents legitimate and valuable encyclopedic content IMO". The delete side had a stronger argument than keep, but there was certainly no consensus to delete. While this does put the closer in a difficult position, Sandstein was not without alternatives: he could have made this point in a comment and extended the AfD, for example. An extended AfD could be looking for an ATD or to see whether a presentation of the policy facts sways heads. As it stands, I find this close undemocratic.

Note, it has been opined that the GNG always trumps SNGs. This is not always the case: WP:NPROF is an exception. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

But it does trump them in WP:NSPORT. Alvaldi (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• I deliberately phrased my argument so as not to challenge the interpretation that Sandstein & S Marshall have given to the relation between GNG and NSPORT, but the idea that the latter "trumps" the former is, at best, an oversimplification. What's the point of establishing a presumption that sources exist if the actual challenge to provide sources takes the exact same form as if this presumption was not made? Several people in the AfD said that it is quite likely that print sources exist that are not freely available online. — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline." If an article passes NSPORT, but not GNG, it doesn't qualify for inclusion. If it passes GNG, not not NSPORT, it does. I'm not sure what interpretation you might put on "trumping" that differs from that, or how you feel the above might otherwise be an oversimplification, but that seems pretty clear to me, from the text of that guideline alone. Whether that makes it "pointless" is a legitimate question to ask generally, but it seems problematic to leap from there to simply ignoring what it actually does say. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• I'll reiterate that the argument you are making has nothing to do with the rationale for my 'overturn' opinion, which supposes that Sandstein's contentions about the relation between NSPORT and the GNG are correct. As for it being an oversimplification, note that WP:NSPORT/FAQ has a full five questions exploring the relation between NSPORT and the GNG. — Charles Stewart (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Those five full questions supporting and reinforcing the "also needs to pass GNG" point, so I don't see how that supports your "oversimplification" characterisation. If you do accept these "contentions" (i.e., straightforward summary of the content of the guideline) are correct, I in turn don't see how you get to your "overturn" rationale, other than by observing that it could have been relisted. Closers are enjoined "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." I don't see wherein the closer acted less "democratically" than the required standard, and surely they'd have erred in acting more "democratically". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Since it is irrelevant to the case I made, let's agree to disagree about the 'oversimplification' bit. Since we read the FAQ so differently, I am not too bothered by your failure to understand my argument and won't attempt to clarify if noone else asks. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse in this instance the closer has it correct. NGRIDIRON establishes a rebuttable presumption of notability, and the arguments have successfully rebutted it. I endorse the deletion on this narrow basis. In the general case, SNG/GNG is either/or, otherwise SNGs would be otiose. ("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; and It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy." – Wikipedia:Notability; my emphasis) Stifle (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn to No Consensus, for at least two reasons:
  • The closer discounted the Keep statements because they did not address GNG, but the Keep editors may not have been aware that the closer would be imposing strict compliance with GNG, so the closer should have Relisted to allow the Keep editors time to find the sources that are presumed to exist. While the closer intended to be following the letter of the law, the closer was imposing a standard on the Keep editors that they were not aware of. A Relist would deal with this concern.
  • I have what is probably a minority view that Special Notability Guides should be an alternative to general notability, and that Special Notability Guides are clearer and easier to use than general notability and should be used, not discounted. If the English Wikipedia has 40% sportspeople, perhaps it is because sports have more clearly defined and so better sports notability guidelines than other areas of notability. (Musical notability guidelines are also good because they are clear, and minimize the searching for sources that establish general notability.
    • This is an excellent example of why sports notability guidelines should speak for themselves without requiring a search for old sources.
    • The emphasis on the vague guideline of general notability encourages paid editors and promoters to cram articles and drafts with passing mentions.
  • The editors who said Keep may not have known that the closer would be requiring general notability, and either a No Consensus or a Relist is in order.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• • • Minimizing the searching for sources really isn't a good thing, Robert.—S Marshall T/C 16:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Comment to User:S Marshall - I didn't recommend minimizing the search for sources. In particular, an article can be tagged as needing better sources. I said that the sports notability should not require a search for old sources. The other point that I made wasn't about sports. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
        • Oh, I'm sorry. In that case I've failed to understand what you meant by Musical notability guidelines are also good because they are clear, and minimize the searching for sources that establish general notability. Could you clarify?—S Marshall T/C 17:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    • There were several mentions of GNG in the AfD discussion. There was even some engagement from "keep" !voters, one acknowledging that GNG needed to be met and at present wasn't, but evidently hoping to get there in... another year, maybe? Another insisted it was in "great shape". It seems odd to say that participants would be "not aware" a guideline would be applied, after several people pointing out what it says, and arguing very clearly that it should be. I respect the view that the SNGs should be other than they are, but I don't see why that's an argument for not following them unless and until such time as they're changed. The article is replete with "passing mention" citations of the sort you appear to find problematic, so I don't follow your reasoning there. The issue is with a lack of WP:SIGCOV. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• And if the AfD is relisted, you'll have a chance to refine this argument. The fact is that most of your description of the AfD applies to before the first extension and still a majority of the opinions in the extension period were keep. The argument was made, didn't persuade regular AfD participants, but did persuade Sandstein to effect a dramatic overriding of the majority opinion at AfD. I think this kind of way of making decisions is bad for Wikipedia. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I have probably seen in my 16 years here at ;east 3 or 4 reversals of the role of SPORTSN. I take that to mean there is no lasting agreement, and that therefore any argument based of the fundamental purpose of WP as expressed in WP:FIVE is relevant. Even the most general principle, that we should include what readers would expect us to include, fails in his field, as readers clearly expect very different things. This is a difficult subject for me to consider, asI personally have very little interest, but I accept that most of the world, has a very great interest. The only thing consistent in this area is that all attempts at compromise guidelines have consistently failed. I fall back on my general feeling, that it doesn't matter if WP covers extensively fields I do not care about, as long as it is willing to be equally tolerant of the fields where I do. I therefore focus my arguments on increasing coverage on the areas where I think we need to be inclusive. If other fields think similarly, alll I ask is mutual forbearance. DGG ( talk ) 10:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse - Clearly there's a degree of incredulity from the Gridiron guys, who seem to be quite an active lobby group. Much like their transatlantic cousins at WP:FOOTBALL they seem to have their own in-house WP:ARS and a WP:SNG they've carefully crafted to try and cocoon certain favoured groups of players. And in reality this was quite a courageous AfD close (shouldn't have been, perhaps). I'm an inclusionist by temperament and it's a shame to lose articles like this - in a way these editors are almost a victim of their own success because they've found themselves straying into WP:OR territory. But the logic of the closure was sound - the deletion arguments were stronger because WP:GNG wasn't met. Anyone with any experience of AfD will know the usual pattern: sources are offered up and then the 'other side' pretend they're deficient in some novel way. That's the sort of tedious game which will usually fizzle out into a no consensus, unless there's a bad/partisan closure (which quite often happens with soccer AfDs). The tragedy for the Gridiron guys here was that they didn't really come up with anything in terms of WP:SIGCOV. So they didn't even address, let alone answer, the argument about failing WP:GNG. On this evidence they still haven't. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn (uninvolved) while WP:NSPORTS notes that the guideline is ultimately a recommendation that defers to WP:GNG, this isn't really the case and doesn't make sense as such. After all, WP:GNG is also just a guideline and not policy. Editors in the discussion weighed the specifics of NSPORTS heavier than GNG, which is reasonable to do as they are both just guidelines, and I don't think the closing admin made the right decision in ignoring that. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  this isn't really the case and doesn't make sense as such. Can you explain what you mean by this? JoelleJay (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse A presumption is just that, a presumption until someone goes and actually looks for it. It is not a 'get out of deletion forever' argument. Since most of the keeps at that AFD lacked actual policy & guideline based arguments, they have zero weight. The way you counter an article nominated for AFD due to a lack of reliable sourcing, is to actually find reliable sourcing, not argue 'there probably are sources somewhere'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • There were 17 reliable sources in the article... BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

    You know they meant SIGCOV sources and not trivial mentions. JoelleJay (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

    • Actually, no, I didn't. And tell me this: Why, as an encyclopedia, would we not want to have a high-quality article on someone who meets our criteria of inclusion? Because Vainowski is just that, it was in excellent shape and meets the criteria of inclusion (NGRIDIRON). I do not see his deletion improving the encyclopedia and in addition to many other reasons stated in my nomination, believe we can follow WP:Ignore all rules on this, which states: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

      ...High quality? I'm sorry, but the exact same amount and depth of material could be cobbled together for an article on just about any American high school athlete, or even really anyone with an obituary, many of whom would have far more coverage. So is his one NFL game, about which we know zilch regarding his performance, enough to make up for his biography having literally nothing else more remarkable or worthy of note than any amateur sportsperson? Why have BIO1E at all if we still keep someone who never even received SIGCOV for the one event he could have been notable for? And come on, the only reason you're defending this article at all is because you want a standalone for every NFL player, regardless of whether they have coverage, so at least address how Wikipedia is improved by having this one list (NFL players) only contain blue links. JoelleJay (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse per Only In Death. People look at the words "rebuttable presumption of notability" and, through some trick of eyesight or psychology, read "permanent unappealable exemption from WP:V and WP:N, and an automatic entitlement to a shrine". A presumption that there must be sources out there somewhere no longer applies when people have gone and looked for sources and found none. We expect biographies to contain biographical information, not just statistics. If the sources aren't there to support article content then we should not have a stand-alone article. The delete !voters got this one right, as did the closing administrator. Reyk _YO! 01:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent discussions

7 January 2022

6 January 2022

5 January 2022

4 January 2022

3 January 2022

2 January 2022

Archive