< January 26	Deletion review archives: 2009 January	January 28 >

27 January 2009

George Corral – Restore article on the basis of new info. No discredit to closing admin. – Eluchil404 (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
George Corral (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (restore \| cache \| AfD)`)` This player's article was deleted with a clear consensus on the basis that he failed WP:ATHLETE (I !voted delete on this one - my bad!). However, after a spot of hunting around it has come to light that the division he played in (Mexico's Primera División A) is in fact fully professional (agreed here using this newspaper report), and so he actually passes this notability requirement. Bettia (rawr!) 12:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and no discredit to the closing admin. I also opted for Delete, but it's now clear he is notable. --Dweller (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn - I withheld my vote pending the outcome of the research on the status of Primera A, and forgot to add a keep vote after the conclusion was reached. The admin properly closed the AfD, but some new information was not reflected in the !votes in the AfD debate. Jogurney (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - while he may pass the very weak WP:ATHELTE, still appears to fail WP:N. - fchd (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn based on information pertaining [[WP:ATHLETE] Agathoclea (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)][reply] Overturn- If new info has come to light that he meets notability, then there's no reason to keep the article deleted. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion as correct given the information at the time, but of course undelete now. Stifle (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn - following new research, it appears he passes WP:ATHLETE and is therefore notable. Giant Snowman 15:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn - he appears to be notable, and if we had known this before it would not have been deleted. DeMoN2009 17:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn based on new evidence brought forward here, but emphasizing that the closing admin was correct on the basis of the AFD at the time. Davewild (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn - As per new info King of the North East 21:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

George Corral – Restore article on the basis of new info. No discredit to closing admin. – Eluchil404 (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This player's article was deleted with a clear consensus on the basis that he failed WP:ATHLETE (I !voted delete on this one - my bad!). However, after a spot of hunting around it has come to light that the division he played in (Mexico's Primera División A) is in fact fully professional (agreed here using this newspaper report), and so he actually passes this notability requirement. Bettia (rawr!) 12:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and no discredit to the closing admin. I also opted for Delete, but it's now clear he is notable. --Dweller (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - I withheld my vote pending the outcome of the research on the status of Primera A, and forgot to add a keep vote after the conclusion was reached. The admin properly closed the AfD, but some new information was not reflected in the !votes in the AfD debate. Jogurney (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - while he may pass the very weak WP:ATHELTE, still appears to fail WP:N. - fchd (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn based on information pertaining [[WP:ATHLETE] Agathoclea (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)][reply]
Overturn- If new info has come to light that he meets notability, then there's no reason to keep the article deleted. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as correct given the information at the time, but of course undelete now. Stifle (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - following new research, it appears he passes WP:ATHLETE and is therefore notable. Giant Snowman 15:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - he appears to be notable, and if we had known this before it would not have been deleted. DeMoN2009 17:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn based on new evidence brought forward here, but emphasizing that the closing admin was correct on the basis of the AFD at the time. Davewild (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - As per new info King of the North East 21:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.