Debrahlee Lorenzana – Deletion Endorsed for now. I advise the nomimator to give this some time rather then renominating every few weeks as this clearly affected some of the voting. There also seems to be a clear groundswell that a userspace draft would be a better vehicle then just keeping on nominating this at DRV. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus to overturn Reviewing the discussion, I see no consensus to overturn. Several editors have suggested userification to improve and add new sources, and this closer reads this as the only clear consensus out of DRV#4. MLauba ^(Talk) 14:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded rationale on closure review of Debrahlee Lorenzana DRV#4

This particular DRV asked a specific question, "was the AfD Close valid". This question has been asked in two of the three preceding DRVs (the DRV of 26 August was a challenge to a G4 deletion of a recreation). This time, many of the votes to endorse expressed weariness on revisiting this same issue again, and I have given those less weight based on the notion that consensus can change. So did consensus change? In essence, all substantial votes point to the three previous DRVs and the arguments already exposed there on the application of BLP1E.

Out of DRV#4 I mostly retain the following comments:

User:Snottywong: "Userify (...) there appears to be enough coverage of this individual to suggest that there is a possibility that BLP1E could be overcome. I would suggest copying the original article to userspace (or starting a new article in userspace, whichever is more appropriate), and have a motivated party create a neutral article using the sources available. Hopefully, this new article would highlight why BLP1E is not applicable."

User:SmokeyJoe: "Getting closer, but no, or not yet. The new sources are using the subject as an example in a more general commentary. This is not really coverage of the subject. The subject is incidental. Better to cover the real subject (perhapsDress_code#Work_place), and to mention Debrahlee to only the extent she is mentioned in the sources. No secondary source provided is about Debrahlee, and so we should not have a general article on her."

User: IronGargoyle "In cases such as this, involving controversial WP:BLPs and repetitive nominations for review, a new userspace draft is needed."

User:Jclemens: "But in combination with the later coverage, it demonstrates that 1E does not apply. What else has happened since then is that Lorenzana keeps getting occasional mentions. Of course, this DRV is a mess because no one has put this all together in a NEW userspace draft that incorporates all of the coverage into a coherent and cited whole."

I read no consensus to overturn, but at the same time the clear implication that a userspace draft could have swayed several votes to allow recreation. In essence, two challenges are proposed to the original AfD close: either that the substance of the article should be mentioned elsewhere (an argument in one of the previous DRVs made the point that we have an article on the Resignation of Shirley Sherrod but not on Sherrod herself) and if that line of reasoning is followed, a redirect from Lorenzana to such other mention requires no DRV to establish. Or that there is sufficient coverage to extend notability beyond 1E. If the latter is followed, the applicable policy (WP:BLPDEL reads:

When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis.

The most efficient way to demonstrate that the concerns have been addressed is a working userspace draft, and that one such would be helpful is the only true consensus in this round. Accordingly, this closer recommends following this course of action and seek userification if this article remains desirable. MLauba ^(Talk) 15:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This discussion has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

List of sponsored sports competitions – Deletion endorsed. – -- Cirt (talk) 06:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of sponsored sports competitions (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) The original article was deleted as a work in progress for having too wide a critiera for inclusion. I have now narrowed the critera so I'd like to request undeletion. What I would like placed back on the page is shown where I have made the improvements at User:The C of E/List of sponsored sports competitions. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] What's the encyclopaedic purpose of this list?—S Marshall T/C 12:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well, It is bringing together all the top level comptetitions that have been sponsored for ease of reference and navigation for those looking for certain sports competitions known better under a sponsor name or for those looking for the effects of sponsorship and it could even be a helpful reference for those wanting to research advertising. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] You include Canada Life Premier League as the top tier teams in the Isle Of Man compete in it, however all the teams are amateur teams (not suprising given the Islands small population), so seems somewhat out of place compared to the Carling Cup (say). i.e. The inclusion criteria is apparently rather arbitary rather than particularly meaningful and realistically doesn't do much to limit the size of the list (particularly if you include the historic sponsors also such as the Football League Cup having 7 different sponsers over the last 7 yeras. Navigationally I can't see it as too useful, since (a) it could be pretty big (b) you'd need to know to go there first and (c) the redirects like Coca Cola Cup perform the function you describe. And for research purposes given the arbitary inclusion criteria isn't that great (not to mention I can't imagine anyone using this to do such research since there is no real way of telling how comprehensive it actually is). Much of this is of course points for an AFD, but similar were bought up during the AFD, so I can't see you've really gotten past the problems yet. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well the IOM league can be removed as I suppose it's not the countrie's top tier league as I believe they fall under the English FA's juristiction. As for previous sponsors names, we can always change the critera further to only include the current sponsor names and none of the previous (at least not in this list). Well the original complaint was that it was too broad in that it could include anything down to a local league as long as it had a sponsorship and I feel under WP:SALAT I have fixed the issue by limiting the scope to only top level in a sport's juristiction. You can see what I've cut it down from here. As for the issue of comprehension, that we can easily stick the incomplete template on untill we can be sure we have it all or we could just say it covers the world or failing all those we could split it all up into continental lists. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] To be clear I'm not suggesting any of it should/shouldn't be changed. I understand what you are trying to do, I guess I'm questioning if it's actually the right way to do it since it just creates other issues (Not that I have any smart suggestions of better ways to do it). I certainly don't think that the incomplete template should be added for that reason, it'd be on there forever and we (wikipedian's) shouldn't end up being the primary source to say it's definitive anyway... --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] So, you have no problem with this page being brought back? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] To get it back in mainspace it doesn't matter that much, anyone is free to recreate it and it doesn't need to come to DRV. There are however two problems - WP:CSD#G4 has it sufficiently changed/addressed the original reasons for deletion so that G4 doesn't apply, I'm not totally convinced on that, so I'm neutral. If this DRV endorses a recreation it's a pretty strong case for it not being speedied. The other problem is would it survive a future AfD? that's a harder question to answer and the outcome here will have no influence. In that regard I suspect that it is not yet ready for mainspace, as above I still think the criteria being used to try and restrict the list makes it rather arbitary and I'm not convinced of the overall encyclopaedic worth. That however is just my opinion, which you can ignore (as it's not the job of DRV to second guess future XfDs) in favour of other opinions here, or if others roughly concur you can take it on board and try and work some more before recreation. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well a sincere effort's been made to overcome the concerns raised in the AfD. It's not well-sourced, but, WP:OR is not an obstacle because it's a navigational list, not an analysis that leads to conclusions of any kind. There are no BLP issues. If a good faith editor wants this in the mainspace, then I don't see any good reason to refuse.—S Marshall T/C 21:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] WP:OR applies to lists as much as it does any other subject. So yes, original research is an obstacle considering I don't see the subject itself being used by any reliable sources. From WP:LIST "Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others." Original research is not just about conclusions reached, but the actual subject should not be original either. At least that is my interpretation. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Of course, I'd like it back in mainspace But I suppose my vote doesn't count as page creator, majority editor and Deletion Review requestor. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Nobody's vote is counted. But the fact that you, a good faith editor, sincerely want this material to be in the mainspace will mean that the material will probably be restored unless someone raises a policy-based objection, so your opinion does "count", if not in a strictly numerical sense.—S Marshall T/C 21:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse- The closing admin made the right call regarding the deletion discussion. However there's certainly nothing preventing an admin to restore the contents to your user space, where you can work on it. Reyk _YO! 23:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] That's all been done, Reyk. What we're discussing is whether the material should be restored to the mainspace now that it's been worked on.—S Marshall T/C 23:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn: Per the reasons I gave above. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - I fall to see how the userspace version addresses the concerns raised in the AfD, that the majority of sporting competitions are name/sponsored by outside places, groups, individuals, businesses, etc... What is especially notable about something so commonplace? Tarc (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] It addresses the concerns that there would be an unlimited amount of competitions if it was left how it was. What I have done is limited it to is top level competitions only to remove the issue of it being too broad. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] How do you define "top level"? SnottyWong ^babble 20:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I would define it as the top level of competition within domestic or continental sports. Such as the English Premier League for Football, The English Premiership and Heineiken Cup for Rugby Union, Telstra Premiership for Rugby League, KFC Big Bash, for Cricket for example are all what I would call top level competitions. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse and keep deleted Making up arbitrary criteria do not solve the problems with this list. Sports sponsorship is so common this is as banal as List of buildings with double glazed windows. Changing that to List of buildings in England with double glazed windows or List of four storey buildings with double glazed windows do not solve the problem, they are just arbitrary criteria like the ones used on the draft. O Fenian (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The critera is now changed and narrowed to cut down the unlimited number we could have had. As S Marshall says, it is meant as a navigational list and is not to jump to any specific or contraversial conclusions. The flags were correct for the respective sports and competitions if that's the issue. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I guess the question is why chose that criteria to limit it? Why not those where the sponsership started in 1990, or those where the sponser name starts with "A", or those where the sport is unknown in China etc. Those are of course rather silly criteria and we could come up with any number of such if our aim is simply to try and restrict the list to managable size. The question is does the criteria being used make sense i.e. what is the signficance of top tier relative to the subject? Is the classification into tiers for this sensible (i.e. would a list of second tier make sense and would we spend lots of time arguing about which tier they should appear in...) --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse The deletion was correct. I don't think the change in the criteria deals with the issues that resulted in the deletion. I don't see any reliable third party sources that have this as a subject, we should not be the first. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think you missed the good observation made by S Marshall that perfectly describes the list in itself in that "it's a navigational list, not an analysis that leads to conclusions of any kind." The issue was that it was too broad and could include any sponsored competitions, so I've made it for the top tier competitions only. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Not only did I not miss it, I responded to it. Lists must follow the exact same rules other articles do, and conclusions are not the only things limited by OR, the subject itself also cannot be OR. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] That just making the cut-off point for inclusion rather arbitrary. This is a poorly-conceived idea for a list article. Tarc (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep deleted, the concept of a list like this fails WP:LC items 6, 7, 8, and 10 and always will. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] That's an essay. Not a policy or guideline. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] An essay with some very important points that are relevant to creating an encyclopedia. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

List of sponsored sports competitions – Deletion endorsed. – -- Cirt (talk) 06:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The original article was deleted as a work in progress for having too wide a critiera for inclusion. I have now narrowed the critera so I'd like to request undeletion. What I would like placed back on the page is shown where I have made the improvements at User:The C of E/List of sponsored sports competitions. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the encyclopaedic purpose of this list?—S Marshall T/C 12:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, It is bringing together all the top level comptetitions that have been sponsored for ease of reference and navigation for those looking for certain sports competitions known better under a sponsor name or for those looking for the effects of sponsorship and it could even be a helpful reference for those wanting to research advertising. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You include Canada Life Premier League as the top tier teams in the Isle Of Man compete in it, however all the teams are amateur teams (not suprising given the Islands small population), so seems somewhat out of place compared to the Carling Cup (say). i.e. The inclusion criteria is apparently rather arbitary rather than particularly meaningful and realistically doesn't do much to limit the size of the list (particularly if you include the historic sponsors also such as the Football League Cup having 7 different sponsers over the last 7 yeras. Navigationally I can't see it as too useful, since (a) it could be pretty big (b) you'd need to know to go there first and (c) the redirects like Coca Cola Cup perform the function you describe. And for research purposes given the arbitary inclusion criteria isn't that great (not to mention I can't imagine anyone using this to do such research since there is no real way of telling how comprehensive it actually is). Much of this is of course points for an AFD, but similar were bought up during the AFD, so I can't see you've really gotten past the problems yet. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the IOM league can be removed as I suppose it's not the countrie's top tier league as I believe they fall under the English FA's juristiction. As for previous sponsors names, we can always change the critera further to only include the current sponsor names and none of the previous (at least not in this list). Well the original complaint was that it was too broad in that it could include anything down to a local league as long as it had a sponsorship and I feel under WP:SALAT I have fixed the issue by limiting the scope to only top level in a sport's juristiction. You can see what I've cut it down from here. As for the issue of comprehension, that we can easily stick the incomplete template on untill we can be sure we have it all or we could just say it covers the world or failing all those we could split it all up into continental lists. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear I'm not suggesting any of it should/shouldn't be changed. I understand what you are trying to do, I guess I'm questioning if it's actually the right way to do it since it just creates other issues (Not that I have any smart suggestions of better ways to do it). I certainly don't think that the incomplete template should be added for that reason, it'd be on there forever and we (wikipedian's) shouldn't end up being the primary source to say it's definitive anyway... --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, you have no problem with this page being brought back? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To get it back in mainspace it doesn't matter that much, anyone is free to recreate it and it doesn't need to come to DRV. There are however two problems - WP:CSD#G4 has it sufficiently changed/addressed the original reasons for deletion so that G4 doesn't apply, I'm not totally convinced on that, so I'm neutral. If this DRV endorses a recreation it's a pretty strong case for it not being speedied. The other problem is would it survive a future AfD? that's a harder question to answer and the outcome here will have no influence. In that regard I suspect that it is not yet ready for mainspace, as above I still think the criteria being used to try and restrict the list makes it rather arbitary and I'm not convinced of the overall encyclopaedic worth. That however is just my opinion, which you can ignore (as it's not the job of DRV to second guess future XfDs) in favour of other opinions here, or if others roughly concur you can take it on board and try and work some more before recreation. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well a sincere effort's been made to overcome the concerns raised in the AfD. It's not well-sourced, but, WP:OR is not an obstacle because it's a navigational list, not an analysis that leads to conclusions of any kind. There are no BLP issues. If a good faith editor wants this in the mainspace, then I don't see any good reason to refuse.—S Marshall T/C 21:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR applies to lists as much as it does any other subject. So yes, original research is an obstacle considering I don't see the subject itself being used by any reliable sources. From WP:LIST "Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others." Original research is not just about conclusions reached, but the actual subject should not be original either. At least that is my interpretation. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I'd like it back in mainspace But I suppose my vote doesn't count as page creator, majority editor and Deletion Review requestor. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's vote is counted. But the fact that you, a good faith editor, sincerely want this material to be in the mainspace will mean that the material will probably be restored unless someone raises a policy-based objection, so your opinion does "count", if not in a strictly numerical sense.—S Marshall T/C 21:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse- The closing admin made the right call regarding the deletion discussion. However there's certainly nothing preventing an admin to restore the contents to your user space, where you can work on it. Reyk _YO! 23:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's all been done, Reyk. What we're discussing is whether the material should be restored to the mainspace now that it's been worked on.—S Marshall T/C 23:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn: Per the reasons I gave above. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I fall to see how the userspace version addresses the concerns raised in the AfD, that the majority of sporting competitions are name/sponsored by outside places, groups, individuals, businesses, etc... What is especially notable about something so commonplace? Tarc (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It addresses the concerns that there would be an unlimited amount of competitions if it was left how it was. What I have done is limited it to is top level competitions only to remove the issue of it being too broad. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define "top level"? SnottyWong ^babble 20:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would define it as the top level of competition within domestic or continental sports. Such as the English Premier League for Football, The English Premiership and Heineiken Cup for Rugby Union, Telstra Premiership for Rugby League, KFC Big Bash, for Cricket for example are all what I would call top level competitions. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse and keep deleted Making up arbitrary criteria do not solve the problems with this list. Sports sponsorship is so common this is as banal as List of buildings with double glazed windows. Changing that to List of buildings in England with double glazed windows or List of four storey buildings with double glazed windows do not solve the problem, they are just arbitrary criteria like the ones used on the draft. O Fenian (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The critera is now changed and narrowed to cut down the unlimited number we could have had. As S Marshall says, it is meant as a navigational list and is not to jump to any specific or contraversial conclusions. The flags were correct for the respective sports and competitions if that's the issue. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the question is why chose that criteria to limit it? Why not those where the sponsership started in 1990, or those where the sponser name starts with "A", or those where the sport is unknown in China etc. Those are of course rather silly criteria and we could come up with any number of such if our aim is simply to try and restrict the list to managable size. The question is does the criteria being used make sense i.e. what is the signficance of top tier relative to the subject? Is the classification into tiers for this sensible (i.e. would a list of second tier make sense and would we spend lots of time arguing about which tier they should appear in...) --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse The deletion was correct. I don't think the change in the criteria deals with the issues that resulted in the deletion. I don't see any reliable third party sources that have this as a subject, we should not be the first. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed the good observation made by S Marshall that perfectly describes the list in itself in that "it's a navigational list, not an analysis that leads to conclusions of any kind." The issue was that it was too broad and could include any sponsored competitions, so I've made it for the top tier competitions only. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not only did I not miss it, I responded to it. Lists must follow the exact same rules other articles do, and conclusions are not the only things limited by OR, the subject itself also cannot be OR. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That just making the cut-off point for inclusion rather arbitrary. This is a poorly-conceived idea for a list article. Tarc (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted, the concept of a list like this fails WP:LC items 6, 7, 8, and 10 and always will. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an essay. Not a policy or guideline. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An essay with some very important points that are relevant to creating an encyclopedia. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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