None of the keep votes (all eight of them, which are all essentially a variation of "passes NFOOTY") were valid, on grounds of policy (as NSPORTS states quite obviously that meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb [...]) or factually (as shown by the delete arguments, the football leagues at the time were not "fully professional", so this isn't even a case of "fails GNG but meets overly broad SNG", but actually "fails both"), and these should have been disregarded by the closer (as this is WP:NOTAVOTE, even if the majority of participants, many of them also only making vague waves, decide to disregard existing policy). A failure to meet GNG overrides special pleading that the subject "meets NSPORT", even more so when the subject does not actually meet NSPORT. Overturn to deleteRandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close - there was clear consensus that this individual was notable and merited an article; this is a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, first demonstrated by opening a second AfD immediately after the first was closed. I have !voted in many AfDs that a technical pass of NFOOTBALL is often insufficient; this is not the case here. This is a player active over 100 years ago, so there is seemingly no online coverage, so the presumption of notability granted by NFOOTBALL (backed up by the fact this player had a lengthy career with multiple games) is stronger. GiantSnowman16:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But there are sources already present which demonstrate this player was a professional athlete (meeting WP:NFOOTBALL), what is missing is the in-depth contemporaneous pieces which, unsurprisingly, are not online 120 years after they were written. I am happy to presume, based on what we know, that there was signifiant newspaper coverage in the 1900s about this person and he is therefore notable. No need to reply, you can badger somebody else instead. GiantSnowman16:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are also sources which demonstrate that he was not a professional athlete (as argued at the AfD, football at the time was not truly entirely professional, especially not in Scotland), and there is also the fact that newspaper coverage in the 1900s about sports is far less than what is produced in the 21st-century. The keep votes (many of them nothing more than true votes with a mere vague wave at "passes NFOOTY") should have been discounted. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Playing in the Football League confers notability per NFOOTBALL (see WP:FPL); this player played in the Football League; the player therefore meets NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman20:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing confers notability, it still needs to be demonstrated when challenged. Deliberately ignoring that the football leagues were not fully professional back in the 1900s is nothing but disingenuous. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Might I remind both of you that per WP:DRVPURPOSE we are not supposed to be relitigating issues discussed in the AfD, merely determining whether the closer correctly identified consensus based on what was already discussed there? Smartyllama (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close but relax renomination period - Fenix down's close was reasonable: while the delete arguments were generally stronger, there were far fewer of them and there seemed to be faith on the keep side that the sources were out there. We also have a situation where there is some lack of clarity as to what the "presumption" that sources exist mean in the context of an AfD. Let's wait a month before renominating this one: that will allow the dust to settle on the Pete Vainowski DRV. — Charles Stewart(talk)16:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One sentence further into my endorse rationale sees me argue that there is not yet a consensus about the need to present SIGCOV in the short time period of an AfD. Waiting a month gives the policy discussion a chance to advance a little further before the AfD is renominated. I hope that we see some workable compromise emerge on this issue. I have a couple of ideas. — Charles Stewart(talk)16:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After four weeks the policy might have been tightened or clarified, and there will have been an extra month of fruitless searches for sources on this person, but none of that will prevent people screaming WP:NOTAGAIN if it's renominated. ReykYO!01:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While bringing up other AfD outcomes seems to me an unhelpful tangent, if this is to help illustrate that your position is "just count the votes", perhaps you should consider an RfC on WP:NOTAVOTE? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close Yes the age of the player the biography is for is thin, but there is a process wikipedia football project goes by and the article certainly has issues, but that doesn't need to be addressed this way. This ending up at DRV in order to delete it. This is everything wrong at wikipedia. The article can be improved I am sure with the right research. Govvy (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify what that process is? Is it one that at some point terminates, if GNG can't be satisfied, and declares that the presumption of notability has been overturned? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I further demand that the aspersions of Canadianness also be struck! (Joking, joking.) No, I am not, nor am I a tactically or purposefully signed-out editor. Will you now address my original question, please? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse arguments based on the subject passing subject-specific notability criteria and the likelihood of sources existing are reasonable and should be taken into consideration (the latter per WP:NEXIST). Unless these arguments are disregarded or massively downweighted that discussion couldn't be closed as Delete. Hut 8.512:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse It is the job of a closer to assess consensus, not to impose their own viewpoint. In this case, consensus was to keep. While that consensus may have been misguided, it was indeed consensus and there's no other way this could have gone. It's not the closer's job to impose their own view, nor is it our job at DRV to do so. Smartyllama (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist - the keep !votes simply citing NFOOTBALL ought to have been disregarded, given that they were factually wrong and in any case NSPORT is subordinate to the GNG. Apart from anything else this was a poor closure because discussion around the rather scanty sourcing was still ongoing. Admittedly the article has improved since I and others ferreted out those passing mentions at the AfD. Some experienced WP:FOOTBALL editors then appear to have woven quite a clever cocktail out of them (exactly like the WP:NFL guys did with Pete Vainowski) to create, on the face of it, a functional article. The problem is I think they've covered WP:V but still have work to do in terms of WP:N. There's been a decisive result in the Vainowski DRV now and we can't ignore its applicability here. It also has to be said: for several years now this closing admin has been WP:FOOTBALL's in-house AfD closer – supervoting, disguising !votes as re-listing comments etc. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist per nom, or in the alternative renominate expeditiously per chalst's rationale if not improved in the next month or two. "Keeps" (with one "weak" exception) make no attempt at all to address actual rather than presumed notability at all. "Per the aspects of this guideline I like, ignoring what it actually says." Not at all satisfactory. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse for two reasons:
The close correctly reflects a consensus, and it was not and is not the job of the closer to supervote when they disagree with consensus.
I have the minority viewpoint that general notability is a troublesome guideline when special notability guidelines exist, and that special notability guidelines should stand on their own rather than being presumptions only. We have a verifiable source that the subject satisfies association football notability, and that is what we should be asking. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the appellant's RFC, but the RFC is a better way to change policy or to rectify a policy ambiguity than a piecemeal attack by deletions. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But... there's no actual ambiguity here. NFOOTY presumes notability, but expressly doesn't establish it without GNG. You're precisely doing the "piecemeal attack" on the P&Gs by suggesting people simply "!"vote otherwise, then insisting the closer just tally those and close accordingly. We could just have a script for that, if there's no role in determining if the consensus is in line with policy. Or indeed with "just" guidelines, as in this case. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse When there's a rule of thumb presuming notability , it indicates notability unless proven otherwise by a comprehensive search covering al likely sources, demonstrating that no adequate sources can be found. It shifts the burden to the person trying to show the presumption is wrong. Thats rth=the normal meaningof the words, as well as the customary legal meaning. ``— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 10:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's an extreme maximalist -- and frankly, pretty wikilegalistic -- interpretation of the meaning of the word. Here's an actual normal one, as found in the wild: "an idea that is taken to be true on the basis of probability". When our guideline says "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline", are we to stare in "... but it's also fine if we just argue 'can't prove a negative!' ad infinitum". Editors should have the responsibility to provide proper sources for material they wish to introduce. "Shifting the burden" anywhere else is exactly the wrong approach. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Sure. Adding snark in response to others' comments really demonstrates that your position has merit. How could I ever have held the other opinion? Oh, wait, that's because I've been around for a bit. You? Jclemens (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So now even resorting to an argument from authority? The IP's right that the other DRV does show how the endorse (and the "keeps" in the original AfD) are based more in wishful thinking than in actual Wikipedia policy (which does not, as far as I know, have any exemption for sportsmen [because we all know this rarely applies to sportswomen] to have an article even if they fail to meet all the other criteria). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unquestionably an authority on the source of my own opinions, which the IP address was questioning. Just like most of the policy-based arguments, a WP:VAGUEWAVE rather than an actual argument of the analysis and why it differs from that preferred. Oh, and WP:N isn't policy. Never has been. And silly, Procrustean debates like this are an excellent reason why not. Jclemens (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Per WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS: Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. There are no violations of policy here, or any of the other reasons to discount !votes. The close correctly determined that more !voters applied one guideline over another.—Bagumba (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious. In order:
Contradict policy: Arguments that ignore the requirement for significant coverage which is necessary to achieve WP:V and WP:NOR (those who claim that "passing NFOOTY" is enough)
Are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion (and are in fact in direct opposition to established facts): those who claim that the football leagues at the beginning of the century, in England and Scotland, were "fully professional"
Are logically fallacious: those who claim "Sources must exist", but when asked to provide them, fail to do so and instead shift the burden of proof away.
The need for significant coverage is from WP:N, a guideline, not a policy. A potential closer who has an opinion on an argument on whether a given league is "fully professional" should be !voting and not closing the argument and discounting !votes.—Bagumba (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"It's a guideline, not a policy" is about the most wikilawyeristic argument that could be made: in practice, GNG is widely followed, and no compelling reason was provided why this sportsman (or why any sportsmen at all) should be exempt from it. As for the league not being fully professional, that was clearly shown to be the case (with a well-sourced page on the issue) in the discussion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Surely a coincidence that ROUGHCONSENSUS mentions more on policies: Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable. The distinctions from guidelines are detailed at WP:POLICIES.—Bagumba (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't got the point I was making. Whether something is a mere "guideline" or a "policy" doesn't mean you just get to throw it away whenever you like it (nor that you get to keep trying to interpret these as though they were a text of law - WP:NOTBURO). As for editors "preferring one guideline over another", well clearly NSPORTS itself says that it is subordinate to GNG (which is in any case much more strongly linked to the basic policies of WP:V and WP:NOR, by actually, you know, requiring actual sources and not mere databases); so those editors are wrong. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation of my earlier endorse of the keep at afd.
1. There is no consensus about the applicable policy, so it has to be determined at each afd. The proof that there is no consensus is the extent of arguments in each direction, and thecontinuing inability over theyears to find a clear statement--cases like this are continalyy argued with variable results, and no clarify position otherwise haas has consensus. My own view is that the statement at hte top of the GNG page 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.
2 Even those who think there is consensus, recognize that guidelines are called guidelines because they can have exceptions--in this specific instance as an exception. As the box at the top of the guideline page says It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. "
3. The close in the review of the other article said the onus is on the side asserting sources to show they exist --this is correct in general, but not when there's a specific guideline that notability will be presumed if... the common meaning of presumed means that to defeat a presumption, you have to show it, and the burden shifts. The word "presumed" in the guideline at the top of the GNG page llinks to rebuttable presumption, which says a rebuttable presumption is an assumption made by a court that is taken to be true unless someone comes forward to contest it and prove otherwise. The guard against over-broad interpretation is that any article must still meet WP:V, which is indeed policy.
4. Personally, I disagree with the entire concept of GNG, because it comes down to arguments over whether coverage is "significant" or from a "reliable" source or "independent" , all of which which are equivocal terms. People argue at AfD by debating the meaning of those words, and depending upon what meaning consensus gives it, the result varies. In practice, most people seem within limits to pick the interpretation that gives them the result they subjectively want.
5 I should mention that I am making a general argument. In practice, I do not care in the least whether or not we have this particular article. If I were to maker a general statement about balance, I would say that we have too many articles on minor sportspeople, and should narrow DGG ( talk ) 17:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: I may be confused, but it does rather look like you've !voted twice in this discussion, once to say "endorse" and the other time to say "overturn"?—S MarshallT/C18:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. There are many reasons why I disagree with you about this, but for the purposes of this debate I particularly want to take issue with point 3 where you say this is correct in general, but not when there's a specific guideline that notability will be presumed if... the common meaning of presumed means that to defeat a presumption, you have to show it, and the burden shifts. If that were true, it would place the burden of proof on the "delete" side to prove that sources don't exist -- deleters would have to show not absence of evidence but evidence of absence. I think that this would make it almost impossible ever to delete an article about a sportsperson on notability grounds.—S MarshallT/C11:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. The NSPORTS SNG is specifically subordinate to the GNG, so if we should have an article on this person, then it's for the "keep" side to produce two good quality, editorially independent sources and cite them.—S MarshallT/C18:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete because of the following error by the closer: They did not take into account the strength and the nature of the arguments presented (as far as we can tell, because they did not explain their closure). Had they done so, they would have needed take notice of the fact that the "keep" argument was essentially "passes WP:NFOOTY". This is, in my view (and in the view expressed recently by this forum in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 11#Pete Vainowski) an insufficient argument in the face of a discussion that looked for and did not find substantial coverage of this person, which means that NFOOTY's presumption of notability was rebutted. The AfD would need to have been closed, therefore, on the basis on who made the most persuasive arguments on WP:GNG grounds (given that WP:NSPORTS explicitly also requires meeting GNG criteria), but the "keep" side had no arguments to make in this regard. Their view should therefore have been given substantially less weight. Sandstein 22:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this is that the closer does have discretion to weigh the arguments and in all cases WP:IAR is still a thing. Even with our guidelines it seems people believe we should cover this. They are guidelines, not rules, for a reason. Hobit (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, closers have discretion, but they need to exercise it in a way that allows the exercise of this discretion to be reviewed to ensure that the exercise of discretion was reasonable. We can't do that here because the closer gave no reasons for their closure, and the reasons are also not evident from the AfD. Sandstein 06:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, even if the closer thought that this was a case where IAR applied and rules had to be disregarded for the good of the project (which is at the least not apparent to me here), they would have needed to explain why they believed that to be the case so that we can review their reasoning. Sandstein 06:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The instructions to closers do not mandate an explanation even in the case that the closer has to weigh up rival arguments, and reprimands at DRV made to closers in the past for not providing them at DRV have often been challenged by admins who say that requiring this would not improve AfD. I've taken this to mean the de facto practice is that admins have broad leeway, no duty to explain themselves, and we at DRV have to make the best of an often bad situation. I take it that you dispute that this is a reasonable view of DRV's task? — Charles Stewart(talk)16:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
endorse NC or keep were both within discretion. I think NC would have been a more accurate description of where we are on this, but keep isn't crazy. A delete outcome would be given that discussion. Hobit (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete None of the keep voters showed -- or even argued, for that matter -- that the topic meets GNG, and, since NSPORTS explicitly mandates GNG be satisfied, just about every keep vote should have been disregarded. No good reason was given to "ignore all rules" here, this is just an ordinary AfD in which ordinary rules apply. NSPORTS can't be "met" as that guideline is simply a supplement to GNG, and, since consensus of the participants was that that the topic fails GNG, the outcome should have been "delete". Avilich (talk) 04:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as the closing admin I would have no problem with this being overturned. The comments above about no keep voters really making any attempt to address gng are correct. The problem I have, when the voting is as it was in this afd, the only other times I have been at DRV re entry is where I have tried to make an independent assessment of the strength of arguments made, I have been accused of WP:SUPERVOTE, so you're damned if you or damned if you don't. I this instance there is a clear consensus to keep but also there is a clear side with a stronger argument. Fenix down (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative would have been to close as no consensus. In a sense this is right, since the keep !voters find reasons, whether based on inventive policy interpretations or IAR, to find the guidelines don't apply. No consensus allows a shorter period until renomination and allows the new nom a chance to bring together the delete rationale more forcefully and to pursue amendments to guidelines. It's less expedient than ignoring the keep opinions, but it's far more democratic. — Charles Stewart(talk)17:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Bagumba and WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS. The distinction between guidelines (to which "occasional exceptions may apply") and core content policies (to which closers are obligated to defer) is a sound one, and hardly wikilawyering: as someone wrote way back in 2009, "The idea that guidelines overrides consensus is one that consensus is very much against". The keep !voters in this discussion made the hardly-unreasonable inference that sources do in fact exist (see WP:NEXIST), and there is no policy basis on which to discount those arguments without supervoting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion as justified by a lack of notability is policy, not a guideline, and the concept of a "hardly unreasonable inference" is laughable, as NEXIST counts for nothing if no verifiable evidence can be found. But even that doesn't matter, because ROUGHCONSENSUS says arguments "based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact" or "logically fallacious" are to be discounted (nothing there saying that guideline-based arguments are exempt). Misunderstanding how a guideline works =/= proposing an exception to it, and simply driving by and dropping a few magic letters ("NFOOTY") doesn't make your opinion worth anything. FOcusing on a technical difference between guidelines and policies, and not on the strength of the argument itself, it indeed wikilawyering/gaming at its finest. Avilich (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If overturned to delete, it would have to be restored as the current version is so much improved - an AFD of an article with 2 sentences and 3 references is not a reason to delete one with 11 sentences and 8 references. Not worth relisting, for the same reason. But there was consensus to keep, not to delete; arguments to make an exception as permitted by the guidelines are valid. A865 (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Letha Weapons – This discussion does not have a clear consensus to endorse the G4 speedy deletion, and is closer to an "overturn" than an "endorse". The instructions of DRV say that speedy deletions are overturned if there isn't a consensus to endorse them, so this G4 is overturned. Even a number of editors who want to overturn have stated that in its current state the article probably won't survive AfD and thus recommend draftification; the nominator may want to consider this option. Last but not least, I am assuming that Polycarpa's reply to Jclemens answers their BLP/WP:G10 concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
When I created a page for John Wayne Bobbitt Uncut, I noticed there was no page for one of the actors, Letha Weapons. I was surprised that she did not have a page here, so I did quite a bit of research and crated one. This took me several hours, but I thought the page was pretty good, so I moved it from "draft". This evening I see that my new page was gone. I tried to discuss it with the admin who deleted my page, but they seemed unwilling to restore the page because a *different* page about Letha Weapons (not the one that I wrote) was deleted recently. I tried to follow up with them but they stopped replying. That discussion is here. Can someone please undelete the page for me? Thank you. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that I was "unwilling". In fact, I offered to restore the page to your Sandbox on the condition that you submit it to AfC for review. That is a step that some admins would not be willing to do for an article that was recreated 11 days after an AFD decision to delete the article. I do not know why you didn't take me up on that offer and decided to come to Deletion Review instead.
And in terms of me "stop replying", you last left a message a few hours ago and I'm sorry but I don't drop everything I'm doing to respond to every message on my talk page. I have other responsibilities and since I was out of town for a few days, I've kind of fallen behind in some of them. I think you forget that we are all volunteers here. LizRead!Talk!04:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is the basis of the CSD G4 criteria for speedy deletion. The speedy deletion tagging of recreations of articles deleted in previous AfD discussions occurs every day. I couldn't simply undelete your version of the article, especially for such a recent AFD discussion, the best I could do is to offer to restore it so you could submit it to AFC. LizRead!Talk!05:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". I am perplexed how a page that I wrote from scratch, by myself, could be "substantially identical" to whatever was there before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polycarpa aurata (talk • contribs) 05:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the page as deleted on 8 January and as deleted yesterday. The content is about the same person. It meets the requirement under WP:CSD#G4 that "this applies to sufficiently identical copies ... of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion". The purpose of CSD:G4 is to ensure that editors' time is not wasted by repeatedly having week-long debates about the underlying notability of the subject of an article; once a consensus is formed then it should not change in the absence of new information, not just the same information presented differently. I am satisfied that the most recent deletion should be endorsed. The way forward, assuming the nominator wishes there to be an article about this person, is to present sufficient citations from reliable sources that mention the subject of the article in a substantial and meaningful way, not just in passing, so that the subject's notability is evidenced. WP:THREE is also worth reading. As a final aside, I would counsel our nominator here that not everyone is in the same timezone or has unlimited time to apply to Wikipedia, so a lack of reply for 4 hours should not be interpreted as "stopped replying". Stifle (talk) 09:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse G4 speedy deletion per Stifle's analysis. You'd be better of working with the AfC process, asking for AfC reviewers to look at your draft rather than moving it yourself: it's a bit slower (reviews typically take two to three months) but you get better feedback and declined drafts are not deleted so you can continue to improve them. It won't help, though, if WP:BASIC-quality sources are not there. — Charles Stewart(talk)12:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an admin and can't do this. I recommend asking Liz on her talk page: ask to have both copies undeleted to draftspace or your userspace. It is courteous to blank drafts when you are finished with them. — Charles Stewart(talk)19:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You contested my deletion and I consider myself "involved". I'd approach another administrator and see if they would oblige. I explained my decision and am otherwise staying out of this discussion unless any editors reviewing this decision have any questions of me. LizRead!Talk!23:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, if you are not an admin, I don't understand how you can see the pages. If you can't see the pages in question, how can you possibly know if they are "substantially identical"? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't, that's why my endorse is "per Stifle's analysis". I don't agree with Stifle on all matters of deletion policy, but I trust him on this issue, judging whether the references in your draft count as "trivial coverage" in the sense claimed in the AfD nom. — Charles Stewart(talk)17:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, this isn't about whether the references are good enough. This is about the page I wrote being "substantially identical" to what was there before. I understand that the page might not be good enough and might get deleted anyway, but I find it *very* hard to believe that I accidentally wrote something that was "substantially identical". I spent a lot of time on it and I feel like I didn't even get a chance to defend it. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not insistent on the "substantially identical" part of G4. There's been a long-standing discussion about relaxing this part of the criterion, to give admins more leeway to use G4 to uphold AfDs. Cf. Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 25#G4, AfD, DRV, and recreated articles. In AfC we have an alternate process for creating articles, but if you simply move drafts into mainspace without going through AfC review, you're not working with the AfC process and you get the sharp end of our deletion policy. I have sympathy for your frustration, but because you are challenging the speedy without saying that you will work within the AfC process, I don't find any error in what Liz has done. — Charles Stewart(talk)11:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, you are unable to see the page. You have no way to evaluate the sources. You are arguing a position that is counter to what the policy not only says, but emphasizes. Whether I have other options is irrelevant - I don't think my page should have been deleted. I don't mean to be rude, but if you can;t see the page, I don't know how you think your opinion is worth anything. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's frustrating that the wording of policy doesn't exactly match up with how policy is applied, but see WP:NOTBURO: policy as much evolves to follow practice as guides it. Here the deviation between how G4 is worded and how it is applied arose a long time ago because deleted articles were being substantially rephrased to evade the "substantially identical" criterion. Attempts to fix the criterion to fit practice since have failed. Given what Stifle said about the state of the draft is true, which I have high confidence in, Liz's choice was between applying G4 or listing at an AfD that was almost certain to result in redeletion. The G4 speedy is more efficient and I weighed in with my 'endorse' opinion to support the expedient choice not to relist at AfD.
I do think your experience shows Wikipedia falling short: you didn't understand how real the risk of your draft being speedied was when you moved it from draftspace. But since then you've been legalistically pushing your for your text to be undeleted rather than taking Liz's good advice of working within the AfC process and you've won no concessions for yourself and made no allies. You're wasting your time. — Charles Stewart(talk)16:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4 on the basis that it wasn't substantially identical, else Stifle would have said it was instead of what he did say about it, but keep deleted as G10, which applies to un- or under-sourced porn bio's of living people. Jclemens (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An allegation that someone is a porn star may be no big deal in certain circles, if not a mark of pride, but is viewed negatively enough widely enough that if it's not sourced well enough to be notable, WP:BLPDELETE applies. Jclemens (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jclements, I agree that an unsupported allegation that someone is a porn actor would be a problem. I assure you that is not the case here. Again, this page was deleted "speedy g4" not because of sourcing or notability issues. This is the second time you have suggested deleting a page that you have not seen for yourself. I do not understand why you are making such negative *assumptions* about me and about the page I wrote. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jclements, it has just occurred to me that perhaps you were making a joke and I missed it. If that's the case, I'm sorry. Either way, you should probably just Google Letha Weapons and set your mind at ease about possibility of mistaken allegations. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is either version of the article available for non-admin viewing? If not, I'd request temp undeletes of both. That said, I strongly strongly think any admin forcing someone to go through AfC is 100% in the wrong in all cases. AfC is a disaster with, as I type this, 500+ articles that have been waiting for a review for 2 months. That's not a reasonable direction to point anyone unless your goal is to just piss someone off. Hobit (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hobit, I don't see how you can view my recommendation to utilize AfC as "forcing someone to go through AfC". I offered to restore this page and move it into Draft space so it could be submitted to AfC because, in my experience, the only way for an editor to overcome a recent AFD decision to delete an article is to write a new, draft article and submit it to AfC for review and, hopefully, approval.
I have seen AfC approved articles still get deleted on CSD G4 grounds but they have a much better chance of surviving a move to article space and the new page patrol review if they have an AfC stamp of approval. It was a recommendation to the editor on what they could do to get an article on this subject into main space, I can't force anyone to use AfC and I'm not going to be watching this editor and their activities. If I see this article or a draft of this article again, I am not going to be involved unless the page becomes a stale draft because that is what I spend most of my time working on these days. I'm not the Wikipedia police or an enforcement agency. LizRead!Talk!22:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, I understand your position that the best chance to avoid deletion of the page I wrote is to go through AFC. You have a lot of experience here and I have very little, so I assume that you are right. That isn't what we're discussing here, though. You deleted my page as speedy g4 which doesn't say "this page will probably be deleted anyway". It says that the two pages need to be "sufficiently identical copies". It says that it "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". I find it very very very hard to believe that I accidentally created a page that meets these criteria. That is why I started this appeal. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: I have an issue with any admin who sets conditions on someone that involves using AfC. The process appears to be hugely broken and unreasonable to expect anyone to use. It feels like a police officer saying "I'll let you go if you promise to never drive down this road again". It's just an unreasonable condition IMO. Hobit (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is unfair. Liz made an offer that was refused. She would have been within her rights simply to have denied the request. Liz's reasoning was sound: if the article is listed at AfD, as you prefer, it is very unlikely to survive. The relative speed of AfD might be seen as a kindness, but it is generally a more ruthless process that is not focussed on salvaging content. — Charles Stewart(talk)19:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I get that viewpoint. But the user likely doesn't realize that AfC is going to be a dead end, and now they are committed to using that (broken) process. It's not a nice thing to do to a new user and I feel no admin should be doing this. Hobit (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4 non-admins (including me) can't see them, but I've not seen any claim that these are largely "identical copies". Given that the creator of the second version says they created it from scratch, I'll AGF that that is true. I can't judge the sourcing as being similar, but no one has mentioned that either way. If some other speedy criteria applies, use that. But otherwise overturn and list at AfD. Hobit (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, now that I can see both, I don't see how G4 applies. It specifically "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". These are quite different in terms of sourcing etc. I suspect it won't make it at AfD, but it isn't a G4. Hobit (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have temporarily restored 2 versions, the one sent to AfD on Jan 1, 2021 and the one replaced after the afd on Jan 18, 2022. Normally , I'd restore the entire history, but I think this meets the needs. The earlier rev del version has not been restored. I have no opinion whether we should have an article--I do not work in this field. I am undecided whether the recent speedy as re-creation was justified--our practices for dealing with recreations of deleted articles are variable. DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse G4. I note that the wrong version seems to have been temp-restored; the ostensibly different one is the one of 18 January 2022, at 16:11, by Polycarpa aurata. But in my view this version is still sufficiently similar to the previously deleted one to allow deletion per G4. That is because it is not readily apparent from the new version that the problems that led to deletion (lack of coverage in good sources) has been remedied. The additional sources cited still appear to be a combination of porn industry sources, tabloid-type sources, and passing mentions in more reliable sources. Polycarpa aurata does not explain, above, how these sources improve the article sufficiently. Sandstein 07:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein, I don't explain how the sources improve the page because I had nothing to do with the previous page or its deletion. This is a new page I researched and wrote from scratch. Your link doesn't work for me. Can you place a copy somewhere so that I can see it? Thanks. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein: G4 specifically says it "... excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". A new article, with new sources, is somehow "substantially identical?". G4 is not a "it was deleted before and this version doesn't look better" rule. It really isn't and it says so clearly, yes? Do we really need to hold an RfC on the meaning of "substantially identical"? Hobit (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hobit, "substantially identical" is not the same as "identical". What matters is whether the "substance" of the article is the same, and this, in my view, has nothing to do with whether it was written by the same person, or whether it uses the same wording. Rather, the "substance" of an article, in the context of deciding whether to delete it or not, must be taken to mean, in my view, the characteristics that determined whether it was deleted the last time. And these characteristics (i.e. very poor sourcing) have remained the same in this case. Certainly there is always a point where reasonable people could disagree whether these characteristics have changed, and then a new AfD should decide this question. This article is a borderline case in this regard; I'd probably not have G4-ed it but referred it to AfD. But I think that a G4 deletion was not entirely out of the question either, also considering WP:SNOW: if we are almost certain a recreated article wouldn't survive AfD, there's no point wasting the community's time with it.
No, Sandstein, that's not what "substantially identical" means. At all. Similarity of content is explicitly separate from similarity of deletion rationale by CSD G4 itself. The more complete quote is "It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, [...]" Your argument is that it isn't text-identical, but the same deletion rationale applies, clearly placing it outside of G4. The point of G4 is that trivial changes to the text do not make a different article, and your interpretation has no merit logically or linguistically. I suggest you spend more time familiarizing yourself with actual Wikipedia policies, rather than your interpretations of them, because you seem to be deviating markedly and repeatedly from the community's consensus that you're supposed to be implementing with the admin tools that have been entrusted to you. Jclemens (talk) 07:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, just echoing Jclemens here. The wording is pretty darn clear. The word "substance" isn't here. It's "substantially identical". If the intent was "the sourcing isn't better" it would say that. It does not. Hobit (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4 This would definitively require an exceptionally wide stretching of the meaning of "substantially similar" to actually meet that criteria (the content is differently organised, the newer version contains elements not in the older one, only very few sources are even shared between the two versions). However, to avoid needless further bureaucracy, Draftify as the issues of the AfD haven't really been addressed despite the substantial changes (much of the article is based on an interview, for example; and some of it is based on unacceptable sources like IMDB). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural overturn - It's not a G4 and looks to me like a good faith attempt to address the problems which led to the deletion. By the sounds of it there's enough in there which wasn't present in the deleted version. It obviously makes a new assertion of importance and the proper way to test that (if desired) should be another AfD, not AfC. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I started this deletion review because I believed that the page I created was deleted in error. After seeing the two versions of the page, I am sure that the page should not have been deleted "speedy g4". I also understand from comments made here that the page would likely be deleted if it were restored in its present state. If an admin can restore the page to my sandbox, I will continue to work on it there before resubmitting it. For the record, I am *not* withdrawing this review request. I would like it to be acknowledged that the page should not have been deleted in the first place. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4: not substantially identical. The new version seems to have new sources, and while they don't seem very strong to me, that's ultimately a question for a new deletion discussion to decide. I agree with RandomCanadian that draftification would probably be prudent: while the most recent version is outside the scope of G4, it's probably quite unlikely to survive AfD. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
