View source for Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 March 27

<noinclude>{{Deletion review log header}}</noinclude>
===[[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 March 27|27 March 2021]]===
<!--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=<PAGE NAME>|xfd_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>|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;" |
* <span class="anchor" id="John Allen (Irish cricketer)"></span>'''[[:John Allen (Irish cricketer)]]''' – '''Overturned to no consensus''' 11:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC) [[User:WilyD|Wily]][[User talk:WilyD|<span style="color:#FF8800">D</span>]] 11:16, 22 April 2021 (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|John Allen (Irish cricketer)|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Allen (Irish cricketer)|article=}}
Incorrect closure. The closing reason states "no sources, no article". The article was sourced, so the closing admin has told a white lie. The votes were 6 keep, 4 delete. Clearly the result of this discussion was not delete, and although keep edges it, I'd say no consensus overall. Reasons for keep were valid and the subject played for a national sports team in a major sport. [[User:AssociateAffiliate|StickyWicket]] ([[User talk:AssociateAffiliate|talk]]) 20:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' My keep comment in the AfD contains a link to an article about the subject, which I'm 99% sure I cited in the article too. Which would therefore debunk the "no sources, no article" mistake by the closer. '''[[User:Lugnuts|<span style="color:#002bb8;">Lugnuts</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:Lugnuts|Fire Walk with Me]]</sup> 20:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Overturn'''. Not seeing a delete result here but could possibly understand it if there was valid rationale. However, the closing "no sources" statement is demonstrably false; as demonstrated by the CE bio which also cited at least one published book. <sub>[[User:Wjemather|<span style="color:#0D5218">wjemather</span>]]</sub><sup>[[User talk:Wjemather|<span style="color:#520D0D">please leave a message...</span>]]</sup> 20:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Overturn to no consensus''' I was surprised at this closer when I saw it given that the Cricket Europe source is significant coverage, so there was certainly some coverage, if only it was one article. One delete vote suggested that Cricket Europe was a self-published website, which was debunked as it was written by a cricket historian who contributes for Wisden, a known reliable source. I wouldn't say it's a clear keep, but certainly no consensus, although I'm not sure that this article needs to go through AfD again in the near future. [[User:Rugbyfan22|Rugbyfan22]] ([[User talk:Rugbyfan22|talk]]) 20:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
*I participated in the discussion so won't be bolding my comments here, as did the three overturn voters immediately above me, but the close was absolutely correct - significant coverage is a ''requirement'' for an article, as much as the cricket community who show up and !vote keep on articles which don't meet GNG when challenged might not like to accept that. AfD is also not a vote - it's about the strength of the arguments - and even the keep !voters essentially acknowledged there wasn't enough for GNG. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]</span>'' 21:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
::The rationale was ''per SIGCOV. No sources, no article...'' There was clearly sources in that article, so that debunks the second half of the closing argument. In terms of the SIGCOV the Cricket Europe biography is secondary, independent and reliable. His passing of a sports SNG and coverage in newspaper snippets mean he's likely presumed notable. As I said above, yes it's only one source, but to say there's no SIGCOV and no sources is a lie. [[User:Rugbyfan22|Rugbyfan22]] ([[User talk:Rugbyfan22|talk]]) 21:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
:::No, there's a clear distinction between having a source in an article and having significant coverage, which is a requirement of [[WP:GNG]]. Also, Cricket Europe is clearly self-published. He's presumed notable until we go to an AfD and decide the coverage doesn't pass GNG, which is what happened here. Apart from Cricket Europe, there was no discussion about any other possible source which would demonstrate coverage which meant he passed the GNG - it's all "well we have an SNG!", even though the cricket SNG is infamous for being poorly calibrated to GNG, and unable to predict when a player will have enough coverage to pass GNG. Weight of arguments is important. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]</span>'' 21:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
::::Cricket Europe is a site run by a series of cricket historians, in the same way that Wisden is published by a series of cricket historians. It's not a fan site or published blog. The article went to AfD and was decided by yourself that it didn't pass SIGCOV. Two other users just posted delete fails SIGCOV without expanding on their point, against what is said to be done at [[WP:AFDFORMAT]]. The Cricket Europe bio also suggests that Billy Platt has written on the subject, suggesting further notability. [[User:Rugbyfan22|Rugbyfan22]] ([[User talk:Rugbyfan22|talk]]) 21:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::Self-published sources don't have to be fan sites or published blogs - it just means there's no independent editorial coverage, and it doesn't necessarily disqualify the source. What we're reviewing here is if the closer made a mistake or not, though, not re-litigating the AfD. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]</span>'' 21:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::Cricket Europe is 
*'''Overturn''' - when the rationale for taking the individual's article to deletion is, "No obituary in Wisden" - is that how far we've descended as a project? What needs to happen is to make articles like this visible to the project first and foremost ''before'' sending to deletion. Note that rationales for deletion have become more and more tenuous as time goes on. Has the nature of collaboration within our project completely gone? Let's clarify, this isn't a re-do of the deletion discussion. This is an evaluation of the discussion. And the simple answer is, the discussion happened in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and there was not enough mileage to make this discussion valid.Take these discussions to an appropriate place ''first''. Ensure enough eyes have seen it first and are able to provide what you may or may not consider "appropriate" sources. The  Taking to AfD must not be a first resort. It is quite clear that, when given the chance for prior discussion, expansion can happen ''before'' an AfD discussion takes place. [[User:Bobo192|Bobo]][[User talk:Bobo192|.]] 21:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
::Please recheck my rationale. I haven't said anything like "No obituary in Wisden". [[User:Störm|<span style="color: #1B1811;">'''Störm'''</span>]] [[User talk:Störm|<span style="color: #1B1811;">'''(talk)'''</span>]] 01:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Endorse'''. The deletion rationale in the close comment is at best an oversimplification, but the discussion itself appears to me to have had a clear consensus that the only in-depth source that could be found was the one on cricketeurope, and (whether or not that one was reliable, not agreed on in the discussion) that one source was not enough for GNG. The article as deleted did include another source that could plausibly have counted, a contemporary newspaper article with the subject's name in its headline, but even wjemather who added it discounted it and only considered the cricketeurope as counting towards GNG. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 23:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' - I second what David Eppstein has said above. CricketEurope's profile about the cricketer can only be used for verifiability. No one was sure if a profile in cricketeurope counts towards notability. All other sources added were trivial in nature and were used just to inflate the article. [[User:Störm|<span style="color: #1B1811;">'''Störm'''</span>]] [[User talk:Störm|<span style="color: #1B1811;">'''(talk)'''</span>]] 00:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' to '''No Consensus''' - AFD is not a vote count, but the vote count should not be ignored without a sound policy-based reason based on strength of arguments.  The closer's rationale does not address the Keep arguments at all.  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' - The closer was correct because there were zero reliable sources providing significant coverage. The delete votes asserted a lack of SIGCOV, with the first delete vote highlighting the problem with the cited biography being self-published on a fan website. None of the following keep votes addressed the lack of SIGCOV or reliable sourcing. Perhaps the closing rationale was overly concise but this isn't Deletion Rationale Review.----[[User:Pontificalibus|<strong style="color:#555555">Pontificalibus</strong>]] 06:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
*:'''Comment'''. You're selectively chosing to ignore the part where it's said that CricketEurope isn't a fan published website. It is run by cricket historians who contribute to Wisden. [[User:AssociateAffiliate|StickyWicket]] ([[User talk:AssociateAffiliate|talk]]) 10:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
:::I didn’t ignore anything. It’s a fan site, it’s not published by Wisden and it has no editorial oversight. I contribute to scientific journals in my day job but if I set up my own website about vaccines it wouldn’t be a reliable source.—--[[User:Pontificalibus|<strong style="color:#555555">Pontificalibus</strong>]] 10:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
::::Things don't have to be published by Wisden to be reliable. CricketArchive isn't published by Wisden, none of the military history books about wartime cricketers I refer to are published by Wisden. [[User:AssociateAffiliate|StickyWicket]] ([[User talk:AssociateAffiliate|talk]]) 11:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Overturn'''. The sentiment for ''keep'' was sufficiently strong that the close should been reflective of the difficulty in dealing with the subjective and advisory nature of our notability guidelines. Well-meaning people deserve better than this. Even as a !vote on the article it was poorly expressed. [[User:Thincat|Thincat]] ([[User talk:Thincat|talk]]) 09:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Overturn to NC'''.  Appears to meet the SNG.  There is one detailed source that no one argues is unreliable (self-published, but apparently by an expert in the area who is well regarded).  Given the numbers and the strength of argument, I don't see consensus for keeping or deleting. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 16:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
:*The very reason why this article was brought to AfD is because meeting the cricket SNG isn't sufficient for an article, given how many players meet the SNG but fail GNG. In order for this to be overturned, the closing argument would have to assume that meeting the SNG trumps having to meet GNG, which does nevertheless require ''multiple'' sources, not one single source which participants disagree about. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]</span>'' 19:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
::*I can't see the article, but as I understand it there are plenty of sources that mention him in this context.  One good source, lots of directory-like sources (which I assume include things about how each player did) is perhaps enough to get us there.  My general sense is that when the SNG is not met, we expect above the GNG bar, and when the SNG is met, we are more flexible.  Otherwise the SNG provides no value... [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 21:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
:::*I think your general sense is generally correct and that we are more lenient when the SNG is met, but if the SNG is met and GNG is ''clearly'' not met, as is the case here, a delete outcome reasonably follows. Furthermore, he ''barely'' passes the SNG, which greatly reduces any flexibility we might otherwise have (if he had 100 appearances for Ireland but no one could find any sources, the outcome might reasonably be different unless someone put in good research showing newspapers did not cover him at all.) [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]</span>'' 16:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
::::*The SNGs try to be a bright line--if the topic is over, it's over.  And it's not the the GNG clearly isn't met.  We've got one good source that we've identified.  We've not found much else.  I'd bet local papers at the time covered him to some extent. I've no objection to a merge/redirect for now if it is reasonable to mention him in the target proposed. But this is DRV and the question is if it was closed correctly.  I don't think delete is the right outcome given that discussion...   [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 17:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Endorse.''' The "delete" opinions argued that there was no substantial coverage of the person, which is required per [[WP:GNG]]. Nobody contradicted that. The SNGs create only a rebuttable presumption of notability, and that presumption was rebutted here. The closer was therefore right to give the "delete" opinions determining weight. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 07:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
*'''Overturn to no consensus'''. The numbers were relatively well balanced and neither side correctly raised a policy-based argument that was not rebutted. Despite repeated assertions to the contrary by certain parties, an article needs only to pass an SNG ''or'' the GNG, not both. If it were otherwise, there would be no point in SNGs existing. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 08:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

::'''Comment''' (from AfD closer): [[WP:SNG]]: "The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia." --[[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty|talk]]) 11:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' [[WP:NOTAVOTE]] seems to apply, and in this case the keep !votes were markedly weak: 2 were essentially "he passes an SNG"; 1 was a "per above". That only leaves relatively weak (one of them self-identified as such) arguments about marginal coverage. There was no consensus to redirect (mentioned by only a few users), even if that would be a possibly valid alternative; and since the strength of the arguments was solidly on the delete side, there was no reason to keep the article (which is what a no consensus close effectively does). Of course this does not prevent the title being recreated as a redirect; but I doubt keeping the previous history of the article is really necessary, especially for a player who is long inactive and unlikely to get further coverage... [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]])  14:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
*'''Overturn to no consensus''' Close reads more like a !vote than a proper close, and as others have explained, is false in any event as there were sources. Whether the sources were ''significant'' is a matter for consensus to determine, and there was no strong consensus one way or the other. [[User:Smartyllama|Smartyllama]] ([[User talk:Smartyllama|talk]]) 12:37, 13 April 2021 (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;" |
* <span class="anchor" id="Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Sensitive TFA images"></span>'''[[:Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Sensitive TFA images]]''' – Original discussion reopened by closer <!--*-->
|-
| 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;" |

{{Archive top 
|result = The editor ''undid'' his close, rather than engaging here, although without avowing that he was wrong. So we're done here. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 21:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
|status = Moot}}

:{{DRV links|Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Sensitive TFA images|xfd_page=N/A|article=N/A, it's on the talk page for Wikipedia:Today's featured article}}
Improper IMO "deletion" (closing and capping) of a talk page thread. It's not actual ''deletion'' of a page, but think this is the correct venue anyway; if I'm wrong, sorry, I will move this thread or you can.

So, there was a talk page thread "Sensitive TFA images". Not a [[WP:RFA]], but loosely constructed as "here's what we might do, you guys support or not?" Lively discussion, about ~20 participants, in 24 hours. People chose to "vote" as if it were a formal proposal, and we had an 11-7 headcount of people opposing the notion (that is 61%, over one day). So the problems I had with [[User:Guerillero]]'s close were:

#The thread was active for less than 24 hours. It's way out of process to close threads after a single day except in exceptional circumstances.
#And even if one thinks that [[WP:SNOW]] applies as a regular thing... there were 18 "votes" and it was running 11-7 against the proposition, after one day. If that's a SNOW close, literally anything is.
#And ignoring headcount, on the merits the arguments were at best about equal all around. So it wasn't an matter of only idiots being on one "side". That's my opinion, but wrong or right it's a reasonable opinion I think.
#And I'm not sure that [[WP:SNOW]] applies to just regular people chatting with each other. There's not really a formal action to be accepted/declined, so how can it?
#And so, an editor properly reverted the closing/capping which I think is her right per [[WP:BRD]], which if doesn't apply to bad edits like this where can it ever apply, but rather than following BRD procedure the editor doubled down. (I don't know if BRD applies to "capping" edits like this, but the BRD page doesn't say it doesn't.)
#And all in all it walks like a supervote and quacks like a supervote, and let's not have that.
 
I reached out to the editor (here: [[User talk:Guerillero#An objection to a couple of edits you made]]), and my above points (and his response) are fleshed out more there), but we weren't able to come to a satisfactory conclusion, so I've come here to get other eyes on the matter. Hopefully it's just a case of "mistake made -- mistake pointed out -- feathers ruffled -- mistake acknowledged on consideration" but let's see how it plays out. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 19:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - This appears to be an appeal of a closure, and I thought that closure appeals sent to [[WP:AN]].  [[WP:DRV|DRV]] does not seem to be the right forum.  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 19:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
::OK maybe. I asked then there. I thought that was mostly for general notices and so on for the Admin Corps, maybe not... then there's [[WP:ANI]], but I don't know if people here would be calmer and wiser than here?, and I'm sort of asking for guidance from the community generally rather than just admins. And after all this DRV forum here is populated by people who specialize in assessing closes... I don't know. I asked them there if they want it. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 20:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
*If this is the right forum, then '''Overturn''' and '''Relist''', but I think that this is the wrong forum.  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 19:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

{{Archive bottom}}
|-
| 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>''
|}