Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 February 15

15 February 2015

Risto Mitrevski

Risto Mitrevski (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deletion discussion was closed after only 6 days, with comments from only 2 other people, rather than the 7 days. I asked the closing admin to reopen for further discussion, but they refused, invoking WP:SNOW. There is WP:NORUSH to close the AFD earlier than the prescribed 7-day period. I note the same admin also closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elkhan Temirbaev and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Michigan Bucks season however I see no compelling case not to delete those articles - but perhaps others do. I request that the AFD for Risto Mitrevski be reopened and relisted to allow for further discussion. Nfitz (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Question, are you asking to re-open the AfD because you want to comment in it in favour of keeping the article? Or are you just complaining about the premature close? In the first case I see a point and I endorse your request, otherwise this discussion sounds like an unnecessary drama. --Cavarrone 23:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• I do intend to comment in favour of not deleting the article. I also pointed to two other articles the same editor also closed prematurely, which I didn't intend to comment on, so wasn't requesting they be reopened. I am concerned though that an editor is systemically closing articles a day early, especially when only 2 or 3 have commented - however perhaps that's a discussion for another place - and I wouldn't have brought it here, if I had no intent to suggest not deleting the article. Nfitz (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment from closing admin. Nfitz hasn't fully represented my response to their question on my talk page. First thing I said in response was: "The consensus was clear on all of those, the issues not novel, and the participants well established and familiar with the subjects. What do you think could have changed in just one more day? What was going to be your argument for keeping?" I would have seriously considered undoing my one-day early close had they actually presented such an argument. And as I also said on my talk page, even with the AFD closed as "delete", all Nfitz would have to do to get it permissibly recreated is demonstrate the individual satisfied GNG or NFOOTY. But they didn't say they had an actual reason to offer for keeping, but instead just basically insisted on keeping it open one day longer for the sake of form. We don't do process for the sake of process, and these football player AFDs are routine and based on clearly accepted notability standards, which is why I considered the consensus solid and clear enough to close at that time. postdlf (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• I don't now how having only two comments on AFD could be considered a consensus solid and clear enough to invoke early closure. It does not come anywhere close enough to the circumstances outlined in Wikipedia:Deletion process#Early closure that allow for early closure. The guidelines there are pretty clear that WP:SNOW shouldn't be "invoked in situations where a particular outcome is merely "likely" or "highly likely"". I'm not sure the relevance of football player AFD's is; football players AFDs are frequently rejected. Nfitz (talk) 05:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. As one of the editors who commented on the original discussion, I don't see what reason there would be currently to reopen. The player clearly failed the subject specific guideline and Nfitz has provided nothing here to assert GNG. Happy to have the discussion reopened if there is anything new to add but no arguments have been put forward to suggest there is. At the moment this seems bureaucratic at best and a bit pointy at worst. Fenix down (talk) 06:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse - The AfD could have been left open for another day, and maybe that is a good idea just to avoid this. But I agree with the closing admin that it would not make any difference in this particular case. To reopen or overturn this specific AfD would waste people's time when the sources just don't support WP:Notability. I don't see this as borderline even. If Mitrevski can clear the bar set by NFOOTY in the future, then recreate. - Becksguy (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse - I understand where the nom is coming from but if the AFD had been started 30 mins earlier, the "7 days" thing would be moot. Without an actual reason this should be kept, I see no reason to overturn the close. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - what do you mean 30 minutes earlier? It was closed just after the 6-day mark. It was a full day from the 7 day mark. For those of us who normally only have the opportunity to look at things once a week, it means we never had an opportunity to comment. Nfitz (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
• Mini-trout for the needless early close, which opens the door to this sort of procedural wikilawyering; nonetheless, endorse unless User:Nfitz provides some sort of rationale for keeping the article besides "it was closed too early". —Cryptic 16:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - my understanding is that DRV is not the forum to make new arguments against the deletion of an article, but was the place to discuss substantive procedural errors in the deletion discussion. As such, I've tried to follow the guidelines (as I understand them) and only discuss the substantive procedural error that was made, for what I would have thought would be an open-and-shut case, rather than fill WP:DRV with material that should be in the AFD rather than at DRV. I'm not asking that the article be kept permanently, simply that the AFD be reopened for a short period of time so that I can make a case that the article shouldn't be deleted. Nfitz (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • We're just looking for some reason to think that there's a chance that the argument you feel you weren't allowed to make would have turned the direction of the discussion. For all we know, you were just going to write something like "<blink>KEEEEEEP</blink>, he's a real person! I know, because I dated him in high school!". You've been asked multiple times for such a rationale, starting with this, and have instead insisted on wasting other volunteers' time by bringing it here instead. —Cryptic 17:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• That request was not related to this article in particular, but all 3 articles that user had erroneously closed. I responded to that request noting that I hadn't yet reviewed any of the articles (not an easy task once the article has been deleted!) and I simply asked him to reopen the AFDs to allow for review. Once it became clear the user was not going to reopen the AFD, I reviewed cached copies of the articles, and could see that only this article had a clear case that could be make regarding not deleting the article. However the user was already ignoring communication, so I felt that it was best to follow DRV procedures to fix the significant procedural error, and then present the case for re-opening in the AFD. The case to keep is based on meeting WP:GNG, and there's a secondary case to instead of deleting, to move to draftspace based on possibly meeting WP:NFOOTY when the season resumes in a few days, given his recent trade to a fully-professional team that meets WP:FPL. I'm not in the habit of either voting KEEEEEEP or making arguments based on my sex life, and I ponder the necessity of that comment. Nfitz (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• The first thing I asked you was what your argument for keeping would be, and you've instead been just evading that question and repeating wikilawyering trivialities, rather than offering anything of substance despite being offered every chance to do so. If you believe you can demonstrate GNG, show us your sources, don't just assert it, and maybe you'll change someone's mind. If you think NFOOTY might be satisfied a few days from now (which could not have changed the AFD even had it been left open another day), then why didn't you just wait until that happened and then ask for recreation? postdlf (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• And I immediately answered that I had not at that time reviewed any of the deleted articles - because they were deleted, and asked you to simply fix your erroneous premature close and simply reopen the AFDs. As I think that WP:GNG is met now - then why would I wait a few days? That's non-sensical. Afer I reiterated my request to fix your erroneous closes I did research all 3 articles in detail, I was planning to simply ask you to ignore the others, and reopen this one based on the evidence I had found - but you never again responded to my request - and yet were actively editing. So I had no choice given your lack of response but to proceed here. Nfitz (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Weak endorse these particular closes but please do not close early like this in future. If the snow is deep a very early close can let people get home before dark but there is no point in closing a bit early. Someone may be planning to comment towards the end of a discussion so as to be able to respond to all the points that have been raised. Thincat (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I would have been happy to reopen had Nfitz actually shown me such a comment, but he didn't (and hasn't. Maybe he still will, but even if he gets the final result he wants here I hope that he still will learn to get to the point in the future rather than waste a lot of time, and realize that not immediately getting your way does not mean that people aren't giving you a chance and trying to be helpful). Note also that the AFD had already gone five days without any discussion at the time I closed it. And the football player AFDs tend to be very binary, on the question of "have they played for a fully professional league" per NFOOTY, which makes them both easy to close once there is a sufficient quorum on the point and easy to recreate when you can verify that criteria has been met. postdlf (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, I was once all too familiar with WP:NFOOTY AFDs but the level of discussion was so dire (on both sides) that I now avoid football completely. Thank you for your selfless involvement! Thincat (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion; no reason to believe outcome would be different if nom had been left open. Neutrality^talk 22:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion / Snow falls, but not in great depth / Small trout swim nearby -- RoySmith (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I'm completely shocked and highly disappointed that everyone here reacts to such a procedural error with failing to simply fix the users's mistake and reopen the AFD for discussion, and instead want's to create extra unnecessary bureaucracy by insisting on having the deletion discussion here, rather than where it belongs at AFD. However if that's how you all want to do it, can someone please close this DRV, and I will start a new clean DRV based on the case that the player meets WP:GNG rather than the closing user screwed up the time period. Though as my time outside the weekend (it's a holiday Monday here) is limited, I may well no start that DRV until I have another sustained chance at participating. Nfitz (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)