Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 August 11
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. It appears that this Keep close did not adequately assign weight to !votes based on "reasonable, policy-based arguments" in accordance with WP:CLOSEAFD, as there does not seem to be consensus that the single source is SIGCOV and no editor made a guideline-base argument as to why this article should be exempt from the significant coverage requirement. Although one editor did point to Cricinfo as significant coverage, they did not address concerns that this is only one source and may not meet SIGCOV due to being nothing more than statistics written as prose. The remainder of the Keep votes point to the number of matches played, "common sense", "procedural keep on the grounds that I have no idea what is in Wisden to add to the article, although those who have access presumably do" and one editor's opinion that sources are likely to exist. None of of these arguments are based on current SNGs or GNG. Given the lack of policy-based responses, I propose that this be Relisted. –dlthewave ☎ 22:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I believe that this No Consensus close does not adequately consider the fact that none of the Keep !votes present evidence of significant coverage or make a policy-based argument for why it should be exempt from that requirement. Instead, both of the Keep !voters appealed to the fact that Oudulf played in many high-level games, which does not presume notability under the current NSPORTS guideline. This leaves us with one Delete and two Redirects which are based on policy. This should be adequate to close as a Redirect, however a Relist would also be appropriate to try to get more input. –dlthewave ☎ 22:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |