Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by XiuBouLin (talk | contribs) at 22:00, 19 July 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 2014 July 16
2014 July 18 >

17 July 2014

Robert Murić

Robert Murić (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was not deleted following an AFD - but it should have been. Five people calling for deletion (including me, the nominator) and three calling for it to be kept. Of the three 'keepers', one said it should be kept because he will be notable in the future (violating WP:CRYSTAL) and the other two stated the article met GNG. However all five calling for deletion stated GNG was not met. To me that indicates a consensus...furthermore a further two editors (Joy and Why should I have a User Name?) commented without voting; Joy stated that "it seems to be a violation of WP:BLP1E and WP:CBALL" while Why should noted that all the news pieces were "the same" - supporting the strong claim that coverage is WP:ROUTINE and that it is all because of a single event - a young player transferring to a big club. As a side note, the article when it was created was just a blatant copy of an identical article in my sandbox! GiantSnowman 18:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the time of the World Cup wasn't the best time to tell people about footballers not being notable enough :) I raised my eyebrow a bit at Scotty's 'no consensus' decision. Had he decided to interpret that 6 : 3 as a weak consensus to delete, I doubt we'd be here again. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I don't think there was a consensus on the key point: whether the GNG could be met. Keep voters pointed out some sources that give the subject a fair degree of coverage; I might have argued against that as well, but there weren't exactly many delete voters with overwhelmingly strong arguments to the contrary. Yes, much of the coverage arose in the context of transfer business, but it was also direct coverage that addressed the subject in detail. Ultimately the GNG point didn't really go anywhere either way. 6:3 as 'no consensus' is obviously going to annoy, but I don't think it's an unreasonable call on this one. In fact, I'm inclined to think it was the better call. Of course, the article should be replaced by moving the sandbox version over it for proper attribution to GiantSnowman.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from closing admin - I probably should have offered a rationale in the AfD for this closure, to make it more clear why I closed it the way I did. As we all know, consensus is not determined by counting votes. Here is the rationale that I offered GiantSnowman when he approached me on my talk page:
The AFD was close enough that the vote totals (i.e., 5 to 3) didn't much matter. I looked at each side's rationale. As you said, one side claimed that he doesn't meet GNG, the other side claimed that he does. So, at that point I need to look at the strength of each side's argument. The keep voters show that there are quite a lot of sources showing that Murić has been signed to a team in the top tier Dutch league, along with rumors that other top teams (like Manchester United and Chelsea) had been courting him. Google News shows 20+ articles on him in the last few weeks. Most of them are about the recent transfer to Ajax, and most (but not all) are Croatian sources. There was coverage of him before the transfer took place, and more coverage after it was confirmed he was going to Ajax. In any case, I felt that the sources that were provided at the AFD generated enough doubt that the non-notability argument was valid in this case. On the other hand, I don't think the sources provided were necessarily strong enough to close the discussion with a Keep result. Thus, no consensus.
Since there are obviously a lot of sources available, this AfD really comes down to whether or not the coverage is routine. WP:ROUTINE gives examples such as wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, and crime logs; coverage of sports matches, film premieres, and press conferences. I'm not convinced that the coverage of a teenage athlete being signed by a top team (and being valued at €6million+ by those teams) is quite on the same level as obituaries and wedding announcements. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 21:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, allow renomination - Scottywong's rationale seems well-thought-out and appropriate under the circumstances. The only thing I take issue with is his interpretation of WP:ROUTINE. With regard to football (soccer) AFDs, coverage of signings (especially those relating to young players) has often been interpreted as "routine". Coverage is often based on PR from agents rather than actual interest in the subject and much of it constitutes one or two lines among dozens and dozens of such articles during the transfer windows. It's only when that coverage extends to actual profiles that we consider someone has taken a genuine editorial interest in the subject. Otherwise, the effort involved in reporting it is even less than that given to reporting match day sports scores. A €6 million signing is not "insignificant" but many youth players are signed years in advance of ever taking to the field and so consensus has evolved to draw the line somewhere. There probably isn't a strongly defined consensus in that regard anyway, so a "no consensus" result doesn't seem unfair to me. That said, there is generally no prejudice against the renomination of an article where a discussion has closed as "no consensus" and it doesn't seem the closing admin has indicated a specific objection in that regard. So that's where I'd go with it. St★lwart111 00:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that this type of coverage is more than just a routine announcement of "Player X was transferred to Team Y at a cost of Z dollars. Player X scored 25 goals for Team W last year." However, since the AfD came to no consensus, I'd have no objection to a renomination at some point in the near future, especially if it specifically focused on an evaluation of the available sources with respect to WP:ROUTINE. ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 00:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but that's not really coverage of him - that's coverage of a legal dispute between the clubs that happens to relate to him. It doesn't tell us anything about him, really and I wouldn't consider it significant coverage of him. But anyway, I don't want to force you to defend your close by taking one side or the other - the whole point was that you worked with what you had, and in this case that was a not-particularly-clear consensus and your close reflected that. St★lwart111 01:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not clear-cut, that one. Personally I would have preferred "delete" as a close, but "no consensus" was well within discretion. Since it was a "no consensus" an early renomination is permitted, and I'd suggest that.—S Marshall T/C 08:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - heads were about even, plausibly meets WP:N. No consensus is the right call. An in-depth analysis of the sources might be able to tilt the discussion, but that didn't occur (from either position). WilyD 09:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That the article appears to have been plagiarized out of Giantsnowman's sandbox seems like a greater affront than its retention following the deletion nomination (though I will grant that a "No consensus" outcome looks like it was within justifiable parameters). Given that it appears that article is going to remain, and that its creation is the only edit ever performed on Wikipedia was by the article's "creator", Nordlund95, an SPA with no user page and nearly vacant talk page, and that such a page should have been created as a result of a page move by Nordlund95 from Giantsnowman's sandbox to the corresponding full article name space (which clearly was not done, and was not done for what look to me like shady reasons), credit for the article's creation aught to at least go where it is due, however that can be accomplished. KDS4444Talk 16:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We can, and should, merge the relevant part of the history of GS's sandbox into the history of this article. The SPA might as well be censured for failing to observe basic copyright policies. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus was the right call, people on both sides didn't budge. They addressed each others concerns, but neither wanted to give. The original editors should be credited to avoid COPYVIO. XiuBouLin (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bell Game

The Bell Game (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This rivalry has continuous coverage in newspapers and books dating back to the late 1800's. I've shown coverage for this regional event dating back to the 70's, it's the largest event of it's kind in the state of Colorado and also the oldest rivalry in the State as well. While this may not be notable on a national level it is certainly notable for the state of colorado. I'd like to point out that regional businesses such as Mesa Mall and other historic places of interest have no limitations that they must be nationally notable. This game rivalry easily passes GNG by having significant coverages in The Pueblo Chieftain, The Rocky Mountain News, Colorado Springs Gazette and Denver Post, these are all major Colorado newspapers It's also covered in books and rockyprep.com. This may not meet the gridiron project guidelines but it clearly has significant coverage, depth of coverage and sources that are separate from the subjects. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 07:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problems I see is that there is a very geocentric notability standard being applied here which I will say that the editors arguing against seem to be harboring, seriously how many single football games are you aware of that have coverage at local, regional and state level, the biggest event of it's kind in Colorado and also the oldest. We have this problems in other areas of wikipedia that we only consider things notable if they are notable where we live. I truly don't understand what I"m missing here, it has adequate and significant coverage which is not trivial and focuses on the rivalry itself and not the two teams. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't waste my time because I didn't think you had much you could have done about it. The coverage that I brought up was more then just routine trivial coverage, and I'd like to point out the references I provided during the discussion as well included feature focus articles on the game traditions itself rather then a particular game out of the tradition. The problems I see is that there is a very geocentric notability standard being applied here which I will say that the editors arguing against seem to be harboring, seriously how many single football games are you aware of that have coverage at local, regional and state level, the biggest event of it's kind in Colorado and also the oldest. We have this problems in other areas of wikipedia that we only consider things notable if they are notable where we live. I truly don't understand what I"m missing here, it has adequate and significant coverage which is not trivial and focuses on the rivalry itself and not the two teams. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Colorado Springs has nothing on Pueblo. ... and the Bell Game is noted as the oldest high school football rivalry west of the Mississippi River" [[1]] Colorado Springs Gazette
  • "Oldest Rivalry in the west" [[2]] Picture from 1935
  • All time oldest rivalry of all Colorado high school sports 1892-2002 (this was time of publication and it a pdf. I couldn't link to that) -Colorado High School Activities Association
  • I think I have provided enough to show that it's not just routine local coverage and if those things aren't enough to keep the article well it happens. I think it definitely passes because it is a HUGE community event that receives multiple coverages and the duration of the coverage is really the deciding factor. I'm not putting it at a high level of importance but it does pass the notability guidelines. I think the difference here is that it is the largest in event of it's kind in Colorado (really big factor that makes it notable for the area), has the age factor of being the oldest and longest rivalry here and overall the 8th of the nation Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, allow recreation - the close was an accurate reflection of consensus which continued to build despite HIAB's efforts to turn people around. That said, my own search brought up a couple of sources not discussed at AFD including another book which talks about the importance of the game to a "legendary" player, after whom they named the stadium in which the games are played. There's also evidence of national coverage of this local rivalry which I think puts it beyond most similar rivalries. Added to the extensive local and state-level coverage and I think this probably passes WP:GNG. I've been an advocate for the deletion of non-notable "rivalries" in the past but I think this one gets over the line. St★lwart111 01:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and Allow recreation consensus was reached in the AfD. A passionate user tried to sway people, it didn't work. There are references that indicate WP:SIGCOV so the article should be allowed to be recreated. There's nothing here that indicates that it shouldn't be recreated. XiuBouLin (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you I tink that both of your assessments are correct there was a consensus and it was interpeted by the admin correctly I just thought the article had significant coverage. BTW User:XiuBouLin what aprt of Hong Kong are you from? I used to live in Chai Wan! I miss the city and hope to be back soon. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 07:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's neato! Across from your part of the HKI, Shau Kei Wan. I love living on the island! The dim sum is still as plentiful as the day you left, so come back for a bite! XiuBouLin (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_July_17&oldid=617631625"