View source for Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 16

<noinclude>{{Deletion review log header}}</noinclude>
===[[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 16|16 April 2012]]===
<!--Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page.

Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:drv2|page=PageName|xfd_page=XfDPageName|reason=REASON}} ~~~~      -->
{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" |
* '''[[:1983 America's Cup: The End of an Era]]''' – No consensus to vacate closure.  There is understandable reluctance to formally endorse a closure that was so clearly out of process, but there is similar resistance to relisting when merging per the previous AfD seems to moot the discussion.  Thus while declining to endorse the closure itself, I will not disturb the outcome pending further discussion on the article talk page. – [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] ([[User talk:Eluchil404|talk]]) 10:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC) <!--*-->
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |   
:{{DRV links|1983 America's Cup: The End of an Era|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1983 America's Cup: The End of an Era|article=}}
Premature closure of the AfD. -- [[User:Alan Liefting|Alan Liefting]] ([[User_talk:Alan_Liefting|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Alan_Liefting|contribs]]) 21:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
:Hmm, is this the right forum? I want the Afd reopened. -- [[User:Alan Liefting|Alan Liefting]] ([[User_talk:Alan_Liefting|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Alan_Liefting|contribs]]) 21:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
::perhaps the close was early, but what's wrong with the conclusion: Merge and redirect. I agree it is not intrinsically a useful redirect, but since some content was merged,   the redirect would have to stand to provide the attribution unless the content was removed. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 23:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Quoting the AfD nomination, as it makes much of my "case" for the early close: 
:::*"The name is a lament rather than a name for a WP article. It is not the name of a book or any other work. The tone is unbecoming of WP."  
::::No disputing the "lament" and "tone" comments. As an aside, however, I found that the name turned up in several Google search results, most importantly as a near-match to the title of a limited-distribution documentary film.  
:::*"It has been slated for merging since 2011 but nothing has happened." 
::::That's almost true. Almost nothing happened. However, the limited discussion (in May 2011) found consensus to merge. The admin who posted in the discussion said he lacked the subject-matter knowledge needed to do the merging. A conclusion was reached; it's just that it wasn't implemented. ther merger had been agreed to, it was just waiting for someone to implement it. After I saw the AfD, I merged the articles, as had been agreed back in May 2011. 
:::*"A redirect is not needed." 
::::We disagree there. See below. 
:::*"Some content may be able to be salvaged."
::::True. The article had some worthwhile substantive content -- complete with sources -- that was not also in the target article [[1983 America's Cup]]. Some of it needed to be rewritten due to its tone. I salvaged the content that looked worthwhile to me. The changes added about 4,100 bytes to the parent article -- a nontrivial addition. I also ignored a lot of content from the "End of an Era" article, some of which might have merit. After using that much content from the article, a redirect is needed to record the history -- as well as to make the leftover content available to someone else who might be able to use it. Furthermore, 11-month existence of this article and the indication on Google search that the title might mean something to somebody both indicate that there's value in keeping the redirect. --[[User:Orlady|Orlady]] ([[User talk:Orlady|talk]]) 02:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''', as material was appropriately merged, deletion is not appropriate, unless some effort is made to provide another copyright solution as discussed at [[WP:MAD]].  I note that there is reason to want to keep the redirect <small>(" Googling the title, I find not only links to the Wikipedia article, but also a reference to a [http://www.movierevie.ws/movies/854230/America-s-Cup-Vol-6-The-25th-Defense-End-of-an-Era.html movie], [http://www.danielprice.com/pencil.html artwork], [http://nonstop80s.blogspot.com/2011/07/1983-americas-cup.html a blog post], and possibly a few other items with essentially this name. --[[User:Orlady|Orlady]] ([[User talk:Orlady|talk]]) 20:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)")</small>.  The closer's BOLD editing, which provided a rationale for the early close against that apparent consensus is unusual, but in the end it was the right thing.  If this view is disagreed with, and someone desired deletion of the redirect, or of the history behind the redirect, the facts should be discussed in a new [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]] discussion.  --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 13:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
:*I agree with Flatscan below.  Orlady was overly BOLD.  BOLD is good, usually, but I'd advise her to next time hold back from closing the discussion, to just do the merge and report the action to the AfD.  As an active editor on the article in question (having done the merge), she should not close the discussion.  Let the next admin do the close.  However, I don't feel that an "overturn" is a step forward.  --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 07:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
::*'''Comment''' - I do not see myself as an involved editor here. As it happens, I was made aware of the article by the AfD (which scrolled across something I was watching). I had never edited it, nor (as near as I can recall) any other article about the America's Cup. I read the comments on the AfD, reviewed the article and its history, the talk page discussion of merger, and the proposed target article. Everyone who had commented in either discussion either supported a merger or indicated that a merger could be appropriate, as some article content was salvageable. Evaluating the discussions, I saw an obvious outcome -- and thus no good purpose in continuing the AfD discussion. I probably could have posted the "Speedy merge and redirect" close before doing the edits to implement the merger, but I've seen far too many cases where an AfD "merge and redirect" conclusion leads to no action (similar to the May 2011 talk-page discussion of this particular merger). Because I felt that it would be irresponsible to close this discussion (either speedily or after a week) without ensuring that the conclusion got implemented, I merged the content before closing the AfD. However, I did not redirect the title until after I had closed the AfD. --[[User:Orlady|Orlady]] ([[User talk:Orlady|talk]]) 14:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
:::* I agree that too many merger discussions are never implemented after consensus to merge, but what would have prevented you from recommending ''merge'' and checking back in a week? If a [[WP:Snowball clause|snowball]] merge is appropriate, I prefer that the AfD is closed first, and then the merge performed. [[User:Flatscan|Flatscan]] ([[User talk:Flatscan|talk]]) 04:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
::* Merging precludes deletion and constrains the possible outcomes, so separating the merge and the AfD close doesn't really help. [[User:Flatscan|Flatscan]] ([[User talk:Flatscan|talk]]) 04:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::I applaud Orlady for boldly performing the merge and redirect on discovery of the need while browsing AfD.  I’d like to see it more often.  The nominators are asked (WP:BEFORE) to consider merge and redirect before nomination, but so often  don’t do so seriously enough.  Mergers are more difficult than AfD nominations.
:::::However, having done the merger (or committed to doing it), Orlady was then an involved editor in the two articles.  There was no imperative to close the AfD.  
:::::I disagree with Flatscan’s preference.  If a capable editor is willing to do the merge, I’d rather see her do the merge and leave the close than see her do the close and leave the merge as work to be done.  I think it is too much to ask Orlady to hang around for a week to what she could do right now.
:::::It is well argued (see [[WP:SLAVE]]) that the serious work shouldn’t be left to the closer.  The other side is also true – the closer shouldn’t be the one who did the serious work.  I think Orlady could have easily left the debate open, left the AfD template on the redirect, and recommended that her merge be accepted by an impartial closer.  I think Orlady should normally be very confident that the next admin along would closed as “Merged and redirected”.
:::::This, whether correct or not, is the approach I used at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solo (Australian soft drink)]].  In that case the discussion concluded that the merge should be reverted.  --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 06:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::: If the choice is ''either'' perform the merger and let someone else close the AfD ''or'' close the AfD and leave the merge undone indefinitely, I agree that the merger should be done. In this constrained scenario, there is clear improvement to Wikipedia, and [[WP:Ignore all rules]] applies. I don't see why it's necessary or appropriate to merge early. By the way, when you consulted [[WP:AfD and mergers#Merging during deletion discussions]] at the ''Solo'' AfD, that excerpt was {{diff|WP:AfD and mergers|483961263|483149995|over two years out of date}}. [[User:Flatscan|Flatscan]] ([[User talk:Flatscan|talk]]) 04:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for the links. There's more history to this than I'd read. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 06:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Relist'''. AfDs run for seven days unless there is a clear reason to speedily close them, which is not apparent here. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</span>]]</span></small> 23:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Endorse'''- Its a bit [[WP:IAR]], but a certainly a logical application. If the article had been properly merged as the previous AFD decided, this one never would have been opened. [[User:Umbralcorax|Umbralcorax]] ([[User talk:Umbralcorax|talk]]) 00:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
* '''Do not endorse''': merging is a reasonable outcome, but I don't see an urgent need that justifies the early close. [[WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion]], while not a [[WP:Policies and guidelines|policy or guideline]], enjoins editors from merging content during an active AfD. [[Talk:1983 America's Cup#1983 America's Cup: The End of an Era]] was a consensus of three editors formed ten months ago. Starting a new discussion to confirm it is permitted, though another talk page discussion would have been preferred to AfD. [[User:Flatscan|Flatscan]] ([[User talk:Flatscan|talk]]) 04:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
** I am not recommending a relist at AfD because 1) the merger precludes deletion (I don't see a need for the [[WP:Merge and delete]] workarounds) and 2) [[Talk:1983 America's Cup]] was a more appropriate venue all along. [[User:Flatscan|Flatscan]] ([[User talk:Flatscan|talk]]) 04:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
* '''Endorse''' - The nomination acknowledged that some content may be salvageable, in which case a redirect is needed to preserve attribution.  Since the nomination implicitly acknowledged that merging was appropriate, and the only delete !vote acknowledged this as well, the nomination and only !vote basically just confirmed the previous consensus to merge, which was then carried out, eliminating the need for the Afd altogether. [[User:Rlendog|Rlendog]] ([[User talk:Rlendog|talk]]) 15:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
*Irrespective of whether htis was the right call or the wrong one, the purpose of Deletion Review is to see that the deletion ''process'' is correctly followed.  I'm with Sandstein and Flatscan: if the process wasn't followed, then could only endorse if there was some pressing reason to ignore the rules and terminate the discussion.  There wasn't and we can't.  '''Overturn and relist''' for a discussion that lasts the proper time.—[[User:S Marshall|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:maroon;">'''S Marshall'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 08:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Relist''' The conclusion was I think correct, and the nom got exactly what he asked for. But once it was challenged, it should have just been relisted.  The  use of AfD to bring about a previously agreed merge is sometimes necessary, but I doubt it was in this case; I see no reason why the nom could not have   done it himself without bothering with AfD.So both the AfD and this review, and the subsequent AfD would all have been unnecessary. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 17:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
:*But what could relisting accomplish, given that the merge has already occurred.  As it stands, this page is now a redirect, not an article, so there is no article to AfD, just a redirect.  And while the redirect could of course be XfDs, the arguments listed in the AfD are no longer applicable, and if the redirect was deleted it would just cause an attribution problem. [[User:Rlendog|Rlendog]] ([[User talk:Rlendog|talk]]) 01:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' - The last consensus to merge and redirect must be implemented before new discussion takes place.  If this article were a redirect, then relisting it at AfD would be a moot point.  If no one cares enough to merge the material, then just turn it into a redirect and be done with it.  If someone wants to merge later, they can grab the content from the page history.  [[User:Scottywong|<span style="font:small-caps 1.3em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#777777;letter-spacing:0.2em;">‑Scottywong</span>]][[User talk:Scottywong|<span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#442244;">|&nbsp;communicate&nbsp;_</span>]] 15:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
::P.S. it appears this has already been done (i.e. it's already a redirect), so at this point I would recommend speedy closing this DRV.  If you can't even live with the redirect, then take it to RfD.  [[User:Scottywong|<span style="font:small-caps 1.3em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#444444;letter-spacing:0.2em;">‑Scottywong</span>]][[User talk:Scottywong|<span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#222222;">|&nbsp;confabulate&nbsp;_</span>]] 15:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|}
{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" |
* '''[[:Daniel Scott (soccer)]]''' – '''Moot''' since the article was recreated and history merged while the DRV discussion was ongoing.  Still, the consensus is pretty clear that new information makes the G4 deletion unsustainable.  Any editor is free to renominate for AfD as appropriate. – [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 00:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC) <!--*-->
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{DRV links|Daniel Scott (soccer)|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Scott (soccer)}}

Now I know this page was deleted a couple of days ago after it was clear that it failed [[WP:NFOOTBALL]] and [[WP:GNG]].  I recreated it yesterday however because be played in a [[North American Soccer League]] match on [http://www.nasl.com/index.php?id=3&newsid=2069 Saturday] which is a fully professional league.  However, I got a message saying that the page was speedily deleted and I don't understand that because he now meets [[WP:NFOOTBALL]].  This page has got to be recreated. — [[User:Mikemor92|Michael]] ([[User talk:Mikemor92|talk]]) 05:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
:The sources in the article as recreated by you [http://fctampabay.com/index.php?id=31&newsid=1168] [http://fctampabay.com/index.php?id=31&newsid=1557] show that Scott had signed for FC Tampa Bay, but these sources do not show that he has actually ''played'' for this team, which is what [[WP:NFOOTY]] requires ({{tq|A player who signs for a domestic team but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable}}). --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 15:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
::Maybe I should've put added a link to his page on his debut for the club last weekend. — [[User:Mikemor92|Michael]] ([[User talk:Mikemor92|talk]]) 15:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Decline restoration.''' [[WP:NSOCCER]] only ''presumes'' notability for players who have played at a certain level. But to write an actual article, per [[WP:BLP]] and [[WP:V]], we still need reliable independent sources that cover him, and none such are proposed here or apparent in the deleted article. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</span>]]</span></small> 20:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Restore''' the fact that the subject has now played in a professional game means the arguments advanced for deletion during the deletion discussion are no longer valid and the deletion discussion cannot be used to delete recreations of the article. Whether the article should be deleted for other reasons is a matter for another deletion discussion, not deletion review. ''[[User:Hut 8.5|<b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b>]]'' 21:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Restore''' per Hut 8.5.  Not a speedy case at this point. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 11:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Restore''' – now looks OK to me, as he has sprung to prominence in the last few days. [[User:Oculi|Oculi]] ([[User talk:Oculi|talk]]) 13:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Restore''' - the original deletion rationale is no longer valid, since he now has played professionally.  As such, speedy deletion on the basis of the original AfD was not applicable. If there are issues with the article regardless of the fact that the player has played professionally now, that should be subject of a new AfD. [[User:Rlendog|Rlendog]] ([[User talk:Rlendog|talk]]) 15:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Restore''' - Original close was right, but due to the new information discovered, it should be given another chance.  [[User:Scottywong|<span style="font:small-caps 1.3em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#224422;letter-spacing:0.2em;">‑Scottywong</span>]][[User talk:Scottywong|<span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#772277;">|&nbsp;spout&nbsp;_</span>]] 15:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|}