Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 March 23: Difference between revisions
→23 March 2013: comment |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
:{{DRV links|Indians-Tigers rivalry|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Indians-Tigers_rivalry|article=}} |
:{{DRV links|Indians-Tigers rivalry|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Indians-Tigers_rivalry|article=}} |
||
Deleted almost 2 months ago and although I can't view the article anymore to verify overall quality, based on the discussion it seems like there was definitely enough policy based reasoning to have resulted in a relist or no consensus. The debate seemed to hinder upon the interpretation of what a rivalry is, with some people claiming there needs to be more of a serious documented history and the others saying that there is enough sourced notability to allow for a possible article. Other notes include, that it was a flat delete with no explanation, and one user, Ultimahero, appears to have "voted" twice. [[User:RoadView|RoadView]] ([[User talk:RoadView|talk]]) 06:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC) |
Deleted almost 2 months ago and although I can't view the article anymore to verify overall quality, based on the discussion it seems like there was definitely enough policy based reasoning to have resulted in a relist or no consensus. The debate seemed to hinder upon the interpretation of what a rivalry is, with some people claiming there needs to be more of a serious documented history and the others saying that there is enough sourced notability to allow for a possible article. Other notes include, that it was a flat delete with no explanation, and one user, Ultimahero, appears to have "voted" twice. [[User:RoadView|RoadView]] ([[User talk:RoadView|talk]]) 06:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC) |
||
'''Additional Comment''' - Now that the article has been temporarily restored, I can see that it was definitely lacking. However, based on the afd discussion, I still lean towards the result being no consensus or further relist as the sources provided were not legitimately invalidated in my opinion. But I'll live if this one is destined to stay deleted. - [[User:RoadView|RoadView]] ([[User talk:RoadView|talk]]) 14:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse''' - arguments in favour of keeping the article had little or no basis in policy and generally just argue that the two teams are rivals. The double !vote from Ultimahero didn't affect the outcome in my view. --[[User:Michig|Michig]] ([[User talk:Michig|talk]]) 07:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC) |
*'''Endorse''' - arguments in favour of keeping the article had little or no basis in policy and generally just argue that the two teams are rivals. The double !vote from Ultimahero didn't affect the outcome in my view. --[[User:Michig|Michig]] ([[User talk:Michig|talk]]) 07:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC) |
||
* '' temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review '' '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 20:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC) |
* '' temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review '' '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 20:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 14:02, 24 March 2013
23 March 2013
Indians-Tigers rivalry
Deleted almost 2 months ago and although I can't view the article anymore to verify overall quality, based on the discussion it seems like there was definitely enough policy based reasoning to have resulted in a relist or no consensus. The debate seemed to hinder upon the interpretation of what a rivalry is, with some people claiming there needs to be more of a serious documented history and the others saying that there is enough sourced notability to allow for a possible article. Other notes include, that it was a flat delete with no explanation, and one user, Ultimahero, appears to have "voted" twice. RoadView (talk) 06:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Additional Comment - Now that the article has been temporarily restored, I can see that it was definitely lacking. However, based on the afd discussion, I still lean towards the result being no consensus or further relist as the sources provided were not legitimately invalidated in my opinion. But I'll live if this one is destined to stay deleted. - RoadView (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Endorse - arguments in favour of keeping the article had little or no basis in policy and generally just argue that the two teams are rivals. The double !vote from Ultimahero didn't affect the outcome in my view. --Michig (talk) 07:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 20:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Endorse see WP:NRIVALRY: "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable." No serious problems with the debate, although it's correct one guy did vote twice. Many of the keep votes failed to make their case or presented a total unfamiliarity with Wikipedia (or both), for example one guy just said they "play in the same division 18 times a year so it is a legit rivalry". It was even relisted once and if anything after the relist consensus was even more clear. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)