The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy Back to userspace. Let's cut the chase -- I'm closing this as a speedy IAR back to userspace and I'll FPP the mainspace title to avoid it being moved back out of drafting by someone who is less-than-fully-aware of the circumstances. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MonteCristo[edit]

MonteCristo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was deleted at AfD just a month ago, userfied after a trip through DRV, immediately moved to draft space, and the resubmitted with only the addition of a few very dubious sources (twitter and random esports blogs). I don't see how any of the objections at the original AfD were met by this new draft. The article in thisisgame.com is in Korean, which I don't read, but from the auto-translation, appears to be an interview, which is not a reliable secondary source. Another non-article in the daily dot. And so on. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the AfC was denied by one editor, but then subsequently accepted by another within a span of a day, without satisfying the suggestions of the first. Do you think we can just close this and send the article back into draftspace?--Prisencolin (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to other contributors at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 June 29: @DGG, Jclemens, Thincat, Hut 8.5, JDDJS, Davey2010, and Stifle: See, this is why I think that "delete" means "delete" and not "userfy", and why I decline to userfy deleted content if no good reason is provided to make me believe that it will be ready for mainspace soon. All it produces is usually this sort of time-wasting exercise with several runs through the deletion process because some editors either don't understand or have no interest in complying with our inclusion requirements. – Concerning the article itself, I am not interested enough in the topic to form an opinion.  Sandstein  06:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep GNG is met. Interviews conducted by RS'es are perfectly acceptable as sources. ESPN covers the guy. I don't see what the issue is here. Jclemens (talk) 06:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. does not meet NSPORTS-- we have always regarded being a coach as less significant than being an player. The article is essentially promotional for his activities. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 07:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with Sandstein abut time wasting though I still think the userfy was appropriate. Does WP:CSD#G4 not apply? You need to read G4 very (excessively?) strictly for the intervening userfy to rule it out. On the other matter, no, different AFC reviewers may well take differing views. All this merry-go-round is tantamount to a quick recreation after an AFD delete without significant improvement. The DRV endorsed the AFD deletion and there is no reason to review all that for a second time. Thincat (talk) 08:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - What a fucking waste of time! - I (like many others) expected the nom to actually turn the article around and source it better ..... Anyway I'm not seeing any evidence of notability and IMHO it still fails GNG. (and I apologize Sandstein for having a moan in the last review - Now I see why you don't userfy anything), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 09:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.