- Karrigan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Page was WP:A7 speedily deleted after a month of being in userspace. Deleting admin has declined to restore page. (I was told submit a DRV, even though WP:REFUND might be more appropirate) Prisencolin (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. Being part of an esports organisation with a Wikipedia article is definitely a credible claim of notability, so WP:A7 would not apply here. Debates over notability should be taken to PROD or AfD. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot really see any claim of importance. Being part of a team I would not say was a claim of importance. However I would recommending permitting userfication or making it a draft so that independent references can prove notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, no credible claim of importance present. In line with the usual process anyone can recreate an A7-deleted article without further formality, and undeleting the article to draft or user space is fine too. Stifle (talk) 08:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the league he's part of fully professional? Its article implies no. I'm inclined to endorse the A7 if that's correct. —Cryptic 11:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- ELeague is fully professional, so was MLG Major Championship: Columbus, which the article listed as an event where he finished T3. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 12:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn WP:A7 and list at AfD. A7 is for an article that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This article (which I've tempundeleted) makes two such claims: that he plays for a professional sports team (one which we have an article about), and the immigration flap. Personally, I don't think either of those is worth anything, and plan to !vote to delete this at AfD, but that's not a free ride for admins to swing the CSD-stick wildly. BTW, this title was deleted twice before, but those incarnations were about an unrelated band with the same name. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- So it seems as if the page has already been restored. Is there any point of continuing this discussion instead of just opening up an AfD? In fact I'm just going to start one right now.--Prisencolin (talk)
- No, it hasn't been restored. Please read the big bold template that's on the page now, i.e. However, an appeal has been made at Deletion Review to restore the page. To facilitate that discussion, the page has been temporarily restored with this message in place. This is a common procedure; it's been restored just so that people commenting here can see what the article was. There's no commitment to keep it any longer than this review takes. Oh. my, I see you've already replaced that template. Please do not do that. I'm reverting your edits and putting the template back. Please do not edit it any more until the DRV is over. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I didn't mean to remove the DRV template. Correct me I'm wrong but no where on the page does it say you can't still edit the page, in any case article in DRV should be reviewed for WP:POTENTIAL not current state.--Prisencolin (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh. You're not getting it, are you? It was only restored as a temporary courtesy to people who want to comment at this DRV. I see you also made a cut-and-paste copy at User:Prisencolin/karrigan, which really isn't appropriate because it forks the article history and makes it difficult to track the edit chain for attribution purposes. I also see you've started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karrigan, which is totally inappropriate while this DRV is still underway. I'm going to close that. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- In my mind, there's no reason to think that this article doesn't at least have a claim of significance; whether this is notable though, is definitely questionable. Heck, even the editors who doesn't believe there's a claim to significance support the userfication of this article. Honestly, this whole process is just an unnecessary WP:BUREAUCRACY and it would be nice if this was just WP:SNOW overturned and we can move onto the real deletion discussion.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that is necessary yet. This was deleted vis A7 (a deliberately lower bar than the GNC) so passing it is not a prerequisite to overturn a speey deletion. Obviously, it's a different story if this goes to AFD and is deleted there.--174.91.187.80 (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn A7 and allow AfD, userification, or draftification. I would encourage the closing admin to query those editors opining above who don't clarify that they think this was an appropriate A7. The bar for overturning (or not going with) A7 in the first place is intentionally low, per RoySmith above, and a couple of the opinions offered above don't seem either compatible with that, nor even fully acknowledging this was a speedy, not an XfD process. Had this been deleted at AfD, there would like be zero overturn opinions offered. Jclemens (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and send to AFD Perhaps surprisingly, I agree that this doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion. I would absolutely vote delete in any AFD, but it should go through that process. KaisaL (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and list. A player for a professional gaming team with a source (reliable or not) that he is "one of the best players in the world" is a credible claim of importance. Just Chilling (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- In case anybody thinks this counts against this person's supposed notability, all of the tournaments listed are supposed to be boldened and indicated as Majors, but I forgot to do this.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- So I'm not sensing that there's going to be a clear consensus by the 14th. Would it be a good idea to just withdraw the nomination and save everyone the time?--Prisencolin (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I don't think so. In a no-consensus DRV the closer has discretion to relist the AfD for further discussion and that could well be the outcome here if I'm any judge. This discussion doesn't seem to be over, to me.—S Marshall T/C 07:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and list at the time of deletion the article indicated that the subject is a professional sportsman, is part of a professional sports team we do have an article on, has competed at notable tournaments and also cited a couple of news articles about them.
I think that's plenty for A7. I think that's plenty to get past A7. Hut 8.5 21:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hut 8.5:, if I understand you correctly, what you meant to say was, I think that's plenty to show that A7 doesn't apply. Yes? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I've clarified the comment. Hut 8.5 21:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. Being a professional sportsperson, even in a niche, non-traditional, or not-really-a-sport sport, is a clear claim of importance or significance. The article should not have been speedy deleted under criterion A7 and none of the others seem to apply. Assuming notability is still contested (as it clearly seems to be) the article should be listed for consideration at AfD. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
