Mailtor – Endorse, but possibly moot. The consensus here is that the close itself was fine. There may not have been an actual consensus to redirect, but given that there was a perfectly reasonable redirect target, Comparison of webmail providers, it would have been dumb not to redirect. But, since then, the mention of mailtor in Comparison of webmail providers has been deleted, which means that the redirect no longer makes any sense. At this point, this is fundamentally a content question, which is best resolved at Talk:Comparison of webmail providers. If consensus there is that mailtor should not be in the table, then it seems a no-brainer that the redirect should go too, but that's really out of scope for this deletion review. So, for the moment, endorse the close, and let wiki-process grind on through the proper channels. – -- RoySmith (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mailtor (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) When the Mailtor article was recently created, the editor who created it also added it to Comparison of webmail providers. It was nominated for deletion [by me] shortly after creation as not notable. Through the discussion, no reliable sources whatsoever were found. I'm having trouble seeing consensus for anything other than delete. Joe Decker closed it as redirect to Comparison of webmail providers since Mailtor is listed there. This seems problematic. This means if I create a page about my company/product/self and add it to a bunch of lists, even if the article is soon deleted via AfD, I will get to keep the redirect because I also added it to lists (rather than, as would be the norm in my experience, removing it from those lists because consensus was to delete it). In the discussion at Joe Decker's usertalk, he explained that while there was no consensus to redirect there also was no consensus not to redirect. I can appreciate Joe's inclination to redirect, and probably err on the side of too many redirects sometimes myself, but this seems to cause problems with the already complicated relationship between articles, lists, and notability as well as extending the closer's prerogative too far beyond interpretation of consensus. I looked and didn't find anything that explicitly forbid or encouraged such a close, and indeed Joe has been helpful/candid in his explanations (and [sort of] encouraged me to take it here), but it doesn't seem in line with the general principles laid out in the deletion/closing process, and so could at the very least use some clarification (or maybe I'm just missing something :) ). — Rhododendrites ^talk \| 23:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] User:Uncle G/On notability#Dealing_with_non-notable_things says it better than I could. That whole essay bears close reading.—S Marshall T/C 23:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Did you look at the sources of the article/subject in question? If I created a Blogspot blog right now and listed Mailtor among 20 email providers, it would be roughly equivalent to what was found. It's a good example of why that essay doesn't make sense given the basic principles/pillars of Wikipedia. That essay says that coverage outside Wikipedia should be the same as in Wikipedia, or to take a line directly: "That the subject only has a single line in an election results table outside of Wikipedia implies that the subject should only have a single line in an election results table inside Wikipedia." If we applied that kind of non-encyclopedic standard to topics with the sourcing level of Mailtor, Wikipedia would become everything it's WP:NOT. ...I digress. This is going off on a tangent about notability in general, and the essay doesn't address afd closes at all, as far as I can tell. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \| 00:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] No, I didn't look at the sources. This is deletion review, not AfD round 2. What I did was read the debate that Joe Decker closed, and I considered whether his close was reasonable in the circumstances. I think that given the closing statement, it's best understood in two parts: firstly a close as "no consensus", and then secondly Joe Decker's decision to redirect. The decision to redirect doesn't come from the debate. It's something Joe Decker has decided on his own, which makes the redirect an editorial action rather than an administrative one. It's a perfectly reasonable editorial action in the circumstances, but it doesn't have the weight of consensus behind it and it's subject to the normal WP:BRD cycle. You could revert it if you wanted. I'm trying to convince you that's a bad idea, though. There are good reasons why individual items on a list don't have to be notable.—S Marshall T/C 07:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] That's not accurate at all. It was closed AS redirect, not as no consensus, which would have been strange indeed given the content of the discussion combined with a complete void of reliable sources. Only after I raised the issue on his talk page did he post the clarification, and even then it's a clarification of a closing rationale to redirect, not to close as no consensus and then separately redirect in some other capacity. From his talk page: "I agree with you there is consensus that Mailtor is not notable, but as long as it's listed at the Comparison table, I think there's a strong presumption that the redirect should stay." --— Rhododendrites ^talk \| 08:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] It's perfectly accurate that I think the close is best understood as "no consensus", with the redirect as a subsequent editorial action on Joe Decker's part.—S Marshall T/C 10:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] How Colbertian. It may be accurate you think it should be understood that way, but it's a fictional narrative. It was explicitly closed as redirect (see link above), and the closer explicitly said there was consensus it was not notable (see link above). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \| 15:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - if this redirect didn't exist, it would have to be created. The redirect could be taken to Redirects for Discussion, but I don't believe there's any possibility that they wouldn't keep it. If there's content in the encyclopaedia on a subject, we want readers to be able to find it. Wily D 08:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Why would it have to be created? The only reason it exists on the list is because the person who created the article added it. So you're saying that if there's mention of a topic on Wikipedia, anywhere on Wikipedia, even something someone just made up or even if it was added by someone with a personal interest in it existing in Wikipedia, an AfD cannot be closed as delete regardless of consensus? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \| 14:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia - it's a reference work that organises information for readers to look up. It's only a meaningful exercise to write the encyclopaedia if people can successful look up the information; otherwise it's entirely pointless. So where information exists on a subject, search terms for that subject need to be redirect to the location of the information so readers can find it. Of course, any outcome of a discussion is possible (if only by IAR), but you'd need an extremely compelling discussion to take an action that flies in the face of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. If information isn't verifiable (or is a problem for UNDUE, or whatever), then it can be removed, and the redirect can be discussed (well, "discussed" - RfD won't keep redirects where the subject isn't discussed at the target). Wily D 17:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Here's how I read the close: as long as the subject if covered in the list at all, this should be a redirect. The AfD close explicitly says nothing about if it needs be in the list (that's important, because a merge outcome can indicate that the material should at least have a brief mention). So basically, if you want the redirect deleted, you need to gain local consensus to remove the topic from the target article. Once such a consensus exists and the topic is removed I suspect the closer will happily delete the redirect on request. In any case, that was the correct close--as long as there is a reasonable redirect target where the subject is mentioned, there should be a redirect... Hobit (talk) 10:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] I'm surprised by these comments. So the answer is yes, if I want my product/software/something I just made up (as, indeed, there's scant evidence Mailtor even exists) to have a presence on Wikipedia, all I have to do is add it to a bunch of lists, then there's nothing anybody can do about the redirect without first making sure it's gone from all the lists and then going through RfD? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \| 14:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] I'm not sure what solution you want here, but DRV seems the wrong forum to raise this issue. The fact that the AFD closer created the redirect is essentially beside the point as anyone can create one. And there's not an applicable speedy deletion criteria for a redirect to a nonnotable list item even if that item is removed from that list... So yes, such a redirect would have to be taken to RFD, unless you want to argue that it then qualifies for WP:CSD#G6 maintenance speedy deletion once the page it points to no longer refers to it, but I don't think that interpretation would have a lot of support. postdlf (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Just remove it from the list (which, like many such lists, forbids entries without separate Wikipedia articles), wait a couple days to prove the local consensus for that, and take the redirect to RFD. —Cryptic 19:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Ok. Well, while of course I don't agree with all of the above, I can appreciate pragmatism -- as well as the fact that this may not be the best venue for the discussion I want to have. I suppose I sometimes see closures as having a significance similar to judgments in case law -- that a close that seems to improperly interprets consensus or policy may have a direct impact on future closes. But given that I've been to hundreds of AfDs without seeing such a close before, that there are so many thousands of these in the first place, and that arguing by pointing to other specific afd closes doesn't actually work all that well in practice, I'm likely overreacting. With nobody else arguing for any action here, feel free to close this thread. Thanks for your time. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \| 03:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse I support this close although initially the closing statement was insufficient. However the later discussion and amended closing statement were, I think, helpful. I think S Marshall is absolutely right in distinguishing between the administrative decision and the editorial initiative in creating the redirect. Even if everyone had !voted strong delete that would only have meant that the article should not exist – it would still be perfectly proper to include information on the topic in other articles and to have any likely search terms supported with redirects. Thincat (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Indeed, you are absolutely correct about the original closing statement.--j⚛e decker ^talk 21:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Seeing as I criticised the closing statement, I perhaps should emphasise more strongly that I support the actual closing action. All too often AFD discussions are polarised as keep and delete (this one was not so) and it is excellent when a more nuanced close can be made. Also, since too many people see delete as meaning that all mention of the topic must be removed from WP, it can help to have the closer lead things forward. Thincat (talk) 07:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Along the lines of Cryptic's comment, all entries in Comparison of webmail providers have blue links. Assuming that none of them are redirects, that fits WP:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Common selection criteria #1, "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia." The ((stand-alone list)) on the talk page combined with the mention of "individual products' articles" in the lead imply this. I think that the list selection criteria are a decent argument against merging or redirecting – that may yet prevail at WP:Redirects for discussion – but no one raised it at the AfD. Flatscan (talk) 04:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] I was referring specifically to the "Please do not add new entries to this table unless there is a Wikipedia article about the product. Thank you." html comments at the start of each section, which have survived unchallenged for nearly a year. —Cryptic 14:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Mailtor – Endorse, but possibly moot. The consensus here is that the close itself was fine. There may not have been an actual consensus to redirect, but given that there was a perfectly reasonable redirect target, Comparison of webmail providers, it would have been dumb not to redirect. But, since then, the mention of mailtor in Comparison of webmail providers has been deleted, which means that the redirect no longer makes any sense. At this point, this is fundamentally a content question, which is best resolved at Talk:Comparison of webmail providers. If consensus there is that mailtor should not be in the table, then it seems a no-brainer that the redirect should go too, but that's really out of scope for this deletion review. So, for the moment, endorse the close, and let wiki-process grind on through the proper channels. – -- RoySmith (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

When the Mailtor article was recently created, the editor who created it also added it to Comparison of webmail providers. It was nominated for deletion [by me] shortly after creation as not notable. Through the discussion, no reliable sources whatsoever were found. I'm having trouble seeing consensus for anything other than delete. Joe Decker closed it as redirect to Comparison of webmail providers since Mailtor is listed there.

This seems problematic. This means if I create a page about my company/product/self and add it to a bunch of lists, even if the article is soon deleted via AfD, I will get to keep the redirect because I also added it to lists (rather than, as would be the norm in my experience, removing it from those lists because consensus was to delete it).

In the discussion at Joe Decker's usertalk, he explained that while there was no consensus to redirect there also was no consensus not to redirect. I can appreciate Joe's inclination to redirect, and probably err on the side of too many redirects sometimes myself, but this seems to cause problems with the already complicated relationship between articles, lists, and notability as well as extending the closer's prerogative too far beyond interpretation of consensus. I looked and didn't find anything that explicitly forbid or encouraged such a close, and indeed Joe has been helpful/candid in his explanations (and [sort of] encouraged me to take it here), but it doesn't seem in line with the general principles laid out in the deletion/closing process, and so could at the very least use some clarification (or maybe I'm just missing something :) ). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Uncle G/On notability#Dealing_with_non-notable_things says it better than I could. That whole essay bears close reading.—S Marshall T/C 23:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you look at the sources of the article/subject in question? If I created a Blogspot blog right now and listed Mailtor among 20 email providers, it would be roughly equivalent to what was found. It's a good example of why that essay doesn't make sense given the basic principles/pillars of Wikipedia. That essay says that coverage outside Wikipedia should be the same as in Wikipedia, or to take a line directly: "That the subject only has a single line in an election results table outside of Wikipedia implies that the subject should only have a single line in an election results table inside Wikipedia." If we applied that kind of non-encyclopedic standard to topics with the sourcing level of Mailtor, Wikipedia would become everything it's WP:NOT. ...I digress. This is going off on a tangent about notability in general, and the essay doesn't address afd closes at all, as far as I can tell. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I didn't look at the sources. This is deletion review, not AfD round 2. What I did was read the debate that Joe Decker closed, and I considered whether his close was reasonable in the circumstances. I think that given the closing statement, it's best understood in two parts: firstly a close as "no consensus", and then secondly Joe Decker's decision to redirect. The decision to redirect doesn't come from the debate. It's something Joe Decker has decided on his own, which makes the redirect an editorial action rather than an administrative one. It's a perfectly reasonable editorial action in the circumstances, but it doesn't have the weight of consensus behind it and it's subject to the normal WP:BRD cycle. You could revert it if you wanted. I'm trying to convince you that's a bad idea, though. There are good reasons why individual items on a list don't have to be notable.—S Marshall T/C 07:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not accurate at all. It was closed AS redirect, not as no consensus, which would have been strange indeed given the content of the discussion combined with a complete void of reliable sources. Only after I raised the issue on his talk page did he post the clarification, and even then it's a clarification of a closing rationale to redirect, not to close as no consensus and then separately redirect in some other capacity. From his talk page: "I agree with you there is consensus that Mailtor is not notable, but as long as it's listed at the Comparison table, I think there's a strong presumption that the redirect should stay." --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 08:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's perfectly accurate that I think the close is best understood as "no consensus", with the redirect as a subsequent editorial action on Joe Decker's part.—S Marshall T/C 10:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - How Colbertian. It may be accurate you think it should be understood that way, but it's a fictional narrative. It was explicitly closed as redirect (see link above), and the closer explicitly said there was consensus it was not notable (see link above). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - if this redirect didn't exist, it would have to be created. The redirect could be taken to Redirects for Discussion, but I don't believe there's any possibility that they wouldn't keep it. If there's content in the encyclopaedia on a subject, we want readers to be able to find it. WilyD 08:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would it have to be created? The only reason it exists on the list is because the person who created the article added it. So you're saying that if there's mention of a topic on Wikipedia, anywhere on Wikipedia, even something someone just made up or even if it was added by someone with a personal interest in it existing in Wikipedia, an AfD cannot be closed as delete regardless of consensus? --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia - it's a reference work that organises information for readers to look up. It's only a meaningful exercise to write the encyclopaedia if people can successful look up the information; otherwise it's entirely pointless. So where information exists on a subject, search terms for that subject need to be redirect to the location of the information so readers can find it. Of course, any outcome of a discussion is possible (if only by IAR), but you'd need an extremely compelling discussion to take an action that flies in the face of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. If information isn't verifiable (or is a problem for UNDUE, or whatever), then it can be removed, and the redirect can be discussed (well, "discussed" - RfD won't keep redirects where the subject isn't discussed at the target). Wily D 17:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Here's how I read the close: as long as the subject if covered in the list at all, this should be a redirect. The AfD close explicitly says nothing about if it needs be in the list (that's important, because a merge outcome can indicate that the material should at least have a brief mention). So basically, if you want the redirect deleted, you need to gain local consensus to remove the topic from the target article. Once such a consensus exists and the topic is removed I suspect the closer will happily delete the redirect on request. In any case, that was the correct close--as long as there is a reasonable redirect target where the subject is mentioned, there should be a redirect... Hobit (talk) 10:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm surprised by these comments. So the answer is yes, if I want my product/software/something I just made up (as, indeed, there's scant evidence Mailtor even exists) to have a presence on Wikipedia, all I have to do is add it to a bunch of lists, then there's nothing anybody can do about the redirect without first making sure it's gone from all the lists and then going through RfD? --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure what solution you want here, but DRV seems the wrong forum to raise this issue. The fact that the AFD closer created the redirect is essentially beside the point as anyone can create one. And there's not an applicable speedy deletion criteria for a redirect to a nonnotable list item even if that item is removed from that list... So yes, such a redirect would have to be taken to RFD, unless you want to argue that it then qualifies for WP:CSD#G6 maintenance speedy deletion once the page it points to no longer refers to it, but I don't think that interpretation would have a lot of support. postdlf (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just remove it from the list (which, like many such lists, forbids entries without separate Wikipedia articles), wait a couple days to prove the local consensus for that, and take the redirect to RFD. —Cryptic 19:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Well, while of course I don't agree with all of the above, I can appreciate pragmatism -- as well as the fact that this may not be the best venue for the discussion I want to have. I suppose I sometimes see closures as having a significance similar to judgments in case law -- that a close that seems to improperly interprets consensus or policy may have a direct impact on future closes. But given that I've been to hundreds of AfDs without seeing such a close before, that there are so many thousands of these in the first place, and that arguing by pointing to other specific afd closes doesn't actually work all that well in practice, I'm likely overreacting. With nobody else arguing for any action here, feel free to close this thread. Thanks for your time. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I support this close although initially the closing statement was insufficient. However the later discussion and amended closing statement were, I think, helpful. I think S Marshall is absolutely right in distinguishing between the administrative decision and the editorial initiative in creating the redirect. Even if everyone had !voted strong delete that would only have meant that the article should not exist – it would still be perfectly proper to include information on the topic in other articles and to have any likely search terms supported with redirects. Thincat (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you are absolutely correct about the original closing statement.--j⚛e decker ^talk 21:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as I criticised the closing statement, I perhaps should emphasise more strongly that I support the actual closing action. All too often AFD discussions are polarised as keep and delete (this one was not so) and it is excellent when a more nuanced close can be made. Also, since too many people see delete as meaning that all mention of the topic must be removed from WP, it can help to have the closer lead things forward. Thincat (talk) 07:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Along the lines of Cryptic's comment, all entries in Comparison of webmail providers have blue links. Assuming that none of them are redirects, that fits WP:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Common selection criteria #1, "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia." The ((stand-alone list)) on the talk page combined with the mention of "individual products' articles" in the lead imply this. I think that the list selection criteria are a decent argument against merging or redirecting – that may yet prevail at WP:Redirects for discussion – but no one raised it at the AfD. Flatscan (talk) 04:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I was referring specifically to the "Please do not add new entries to this table unless there is a Wikipedia article about the product. Thank you." html comments at the start of each section, which have survived unchallenged for nearly a year. —Cryptic 14:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

IFFHS best clubs of the 20th century – Endorse, by overwhelming consensus – -- RoySmith (talk) 01:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
IFFHS best clubs of the 20th century (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) I created an article under the name of IFFHS best clubs of the 20th century, we can see an example of this page in my draft page here. However the user GiantSnowman proposed that it be deleted and merged with the article IFFHS, we can see the deletion debate here. So after the sudden removal of the page, I was surprise but I respected the decision and I decided as agreed to merge (add) what it was removed in the IFFHS page. But I was surprise for the second time because the same user GiantSnowman removed it !!, we can see his act here. IFFHS is a notable organisation and it contributions are agreed by all the international institutions so what this notable organisation published about IFFHS best clubs of the 20th century is normally agreed in Wikipedia. We can see the second debate about this deletion in the IFFHS article's talk page here. Fayçal.09 (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion The AfD outcome was clear - delete. There were no !votes to merge, only a suggestion which was only supported by Faycal.09. Number 5 7 17:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Also worth noting that Faycal.09 has left a rather non-neutral request for input at WT:FOOTY#IFFHS best clubs of the 20th century (request), so probably needs to be made aware of WP:CANVASS. Number 5 7 17:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion - my AFD nomination stated (obviously not clearly enough for some...) that deletion was my preferred option, with a merge as a last resort; nobody supported a merge, only deletion. The AFD close was valid and the topic should stay deleted as it is non-notable because it has not received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Giant Snowman 17:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Restore The deletion request of the user GiantSnowman is not logical because simply, the IFFHS is a notable organisation. His deletion request was very speedy done. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] As you have already been told but continue to fail to understand - nobody is doubting that the IFFHS is a notable organization; however we are questioning the notability of this specific award which just happens to be awarded by the organization. Two separate articles, two separate things! Giant Snowman 17:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Don't worry I understand very well cause simply i'm not a new contributer. I think that as a contributer I can have an opinion and for me, the article is logicaly notable same as FIFA Club of the Century or many others. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] As a contributor you can have an opinion, what you can't do is ignore the consensus of other contributions which are contrary to your opinion and impose it as some how being worth more than that consensus. That's effectively what you are doing here, the consensus from the AFD was that it wasn't notable and so it got deleted, so those others disagreed that logically it's notable same as ... --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] On the contrary, I respect all opinions, however this removing request was done very quickly, only five contrbuters have voted. Generaly I always contribute and it's the first time that I put a request. Hope only that we take decision slowly and after good thinking. This article is about football club and I saw that it disturb and I don't know why. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Not on the contrary at all, you are still saying "I thought it was too quick, so I put my view point ahead of anyone elses". If you had a concern regarding the speed of the deletion etc. discussing it rather than ignoring it was the right course. FWIW a deletion discussion is expected to run for 7 days, this ran for around 12, so it wasn't that quick. A deletion discussion isn't a vote and there isn't a quorum, so five people is adequate to form a consensus. If at the end of this review the current trend continues are you also going to decide this was too quick and ignore the outcome here too? Or if this results in some sort of overturn of the deletion would you expect someone else here to do likewise and ignore this? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse close - I don't see any procedural error or action that is counter to discussion itself. This isn't the place to debate merging or anything else that is unrelated to the close of the AFD itself. Dennis Brown \| 2¢ \| WER 18:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Comment as closer I gave slightly stronger weight to the argument that WP:NOTSTATS, a policy, had some application here. I gave weak weight to arguments which relied on the notability of the IFFHS as an organization, because I the question of the notability of the organization and the notability of this particular list to be different questions. A merge of all the information would seem to me to be opposed by NOTSTATS, and as such, I believe consensus precludes a full merge. As for outcomes in-between, such as a redirect? AfD is a poor, blunt instrument, and should give deference to the normal editing process, doubly so when the discussion being closed lacks nuanced discussions of those options. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Restore IFFHS is receiving official support from FIFA and Uefa and we are talking about top clubs (fully professional) so the list is notable--Lglukgl (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] That has nothing to do with WP:DRV. We aren't here to replay the AFD, review is only to see if the closing admin did something wrong, misread consensus, or made some procedural error. If you think he misread the consensus or made some other mistake, then by all means, explain. Dennis Brown \| 2¢ \| WER 00:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion The AfD outcome said "delete". And also, Faycal.09 is "recruiting" users that share his own opinion (case of Lglukgl, which his argument can't be considered, in my opinion, because everybody knows that these clubs are fully-pro, this isn't an excuse). I think this "recruitment" isn't valid for a healthy discussion. MYS77 ^✉ 00:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] He is clearly violating WP:CANVASS by selectively contacting people that did not take part in the original discussion. [1], [2] and [3]. Dennis Brown \| 2¢ \| WER 00:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endose Deletion - Initial concerns that whilst the organisation may be notable, this award is not. concerned about the Canvassing as well. Fenix down (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Comment Recruiting, violating ???...!!! Are we in a war ??...!! If I want that you don't know I can send only an email. What I do evryone can do. You were contacted by the user GiantSnowman too [4], [5], [6]. Stop these stupidities please. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 09:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] You need to calm down.—S Marshall T/C 11:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Using a neutral message, I contacted all editors who participated in the AFD, including an editor who !voted to keep the article. Faycal's accusations of improper conduct are becoming increasingly tiresome - he has also recently accused me of abusing my position as an administrator. Giant Snowman 11:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Some users were contacted before the 1st debate, and I had not accuse you because for me sending message for any debate's participation is normal. Now please I hope to change discuss because the real debate is about the article here, we don't need false problems such as who contact who. Normaly all notable wikipedia contributers can participate. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 11:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] What do you mean that "Some users were contacted before the 1st debate"? Giant Snowman 11:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] I mean simply you contacted the admin to participate in the debate [7] and for me this act is normal because you are right and free to invite notable users. And normaly me too i'm free to invite too "notable" users to participate. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 12:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] As already stated, I invited I contacted all editors who participated in the AFD, and yes that includes the closing admin. They have an interest in this subsequent discussion - whereas your notification to Lglukgl (who did not participate in the original AFD) is nothing but suspicious. Giant Snowman 12:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] As you see in my message to the user Lglukgl, I invited him to only participate, he is free to gives his opinion positive or negative. I don't have bad intention for doing that really. We are here in Wikipedia to serve knowledge to humanity, sometimes we can see injust article or act and we try to correct, sometimes we create articles. And finally we need to work together and that's my thinking. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] But why did you choose that particular user? It's getting increasingly hard to AGF here, especially since you have since seemed to agree to do something in return for their participation here... Giant Snowman 12:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Hold on a minute Faycal.09, there is no such thing as "notable" users. Contacting people who have previously participated is fine as long as you do so in a neutral way (your wording was actually ok), but only if you invite ALL of them, as GiantSnowman did. Or if you put a neutral notice on a WikiProject that covers the topic, that is fine because it is reaching out to a group of interested people, not just cherry picking your buddies who will take your side. You need to stop thinking of this as a "debate" (it is supposed to be a discussion, not a debate...) and stop thinking of anyone here as "notable" (we're all just a bunch of editors). What you did is a clear violation of WP:CANVASS, and can get your (rightly) blocked. It is a form of gaming the system. Dennis Brown \| 2¢ \| WER 12:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] To GiantSnowman, no the reason is because I worked with him to perform or create many articles and because he participate in the former debate, you invited users to participate, I invited too users to participate. For me it was a normal act. To Dennis Brown, I invited a user Lglukgl right, however I also invited a closer admin j⚛e decker [8], I add invitation in the WikiProject Football [9]. I used terms "notable" mean good users, "discuss" mean debate. There is problem because this? --Fayçal.09 (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] To answer about the notoriety of the article. These are some official links about these awards fifa, conmebol, al-hilal, goal. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] No, Lglukgl did NOT participate in the AFD - so why did you invite them? Other than the fact, that you admit, that you worked together in the past and you were hoping he would be sympathetic to your position (oh and big surprise he has expressed the same opinion as you!). Giant Snowman 14:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] GiantSnowman I will not repeat and explain again and again, I work with the user Lglukgl same as many others, he is not my freind, I had invited neutral users, you must stop your acting, we are here to debate about the article not about me. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] But Lglukgl, a user you work with, is not neutral - and who else did you invite? Yes we are here to discuss the merits of the deletion, but that is harder to do if you are attempting to sway the discussion in your favour. Giant Snowman 15:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Faycal, whether you understand it or not, I've blocked editors for doing what you did. Policy says you can't do that. I've voted here, so involved, but what you did is a clear violation of policy. Period. You don't call in your buddies to pad the vote. Read WP:CANVASS, I've already linked it enough times. Likely, it won't matter because votes by people you canvass will be thrown out by whoever closes the discussion, so you didn't help yourself. I do find it troubling that you don't even understand why that is offensive. Dennis Brown \| 2¢ \| WER 15:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Dennis Brown why you said my buddies. You disagree a vote of the user Lglukgl and your free in your thinking and we can close this debate. For me I do a correct procedure, I made a request (in this page), I made a warring in the IFFHS talk page, I invite the closer admin, I add an invitation in the Wikiproject Football. You will not blame me because I contact one user. Now you had put your comment about that ok. Now I hope that we continue constructively to debate about the problem page. Now about the page each one (you or me) can have his opinion and we must respect it. You said that the article is not notable, I respect your decision but we need a proof by adding a link for exemple. I said that the article is notable and I gives you some official links. If the users who participate in this debate vote that is not notable that's allright, let say their opinions. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse the deletion: I read all the diffs. Faycal.09 has laid out a coherent case. It appears from his view, and the view of the other editors on the target article talk page, that the deletion does not preclude use of the deleted material. My understanding of WP policy is that if it's deleted, we don't turn around and recreate exactly the same article the community just ivoted to delete. It is permitted to make another article, but it cannot be a reproduction of the one just deleted. I ivoted to delete and not merge that material because of WP:NOTSTATS. That's the problem with the material. It is all stats and no narrative summary that would be found in an encyclopedia. My feeling at the time, though I did not mention it, was that an external link could be inserted to what would have been the target article if merger had been the outcome. I still feel that all this material is too much. I also don't feel GiantSnowman has abused his admin privileges. He's sticking by the outcome of the AfD and that says to me he's protecting the project. My ivote here is to endorse the deletion. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse the AFD close (the keeps were based on a misunderstanding of the notability guidelines) but other matters have arisen here that I shall comment on. There has clearly been a lot of misunderstandings at this DRV on both sides of the discussion. WP:CANVASS does not necessarily forbid approaching individual users on their talk pages. It is the wording and motivation that counts. Amongst the four examples of acceptable notifications are "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)" and "Editors known for expertise in the field". I do know know whether there was any justification in this case but there might have been. Secondly, although the AFD nominator was, as any editor would be, wholly entitled to remove the material from International Federation of Football History & Statistics here, one of the reasons given in the edit summary ("topic of 'continental clubs' has been determined to be non-notable at AFD, and 'Sporcle' is not a RS") was inappropriate. The AFD determined that there should not be an article on this subject but information on "non-notable" topics may indeed be included within other articles. However, lack of reliable sources, copyright infringement, or plain editorial judgement are all perfectly valid reasons for removing material. Thincat (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, clear consensus that this was not a notable topic and very weak and confused arguments in opposition (the comment that the organization is one "capable of producing notable materials" is just pure nonsense). On the question that's actually irrelevant to this forum, though the AFD result does not preclude this list or award of the IFFHS from being covered in another article, only from it being a standalone article, I share the concerns that duplicating the list in full may raise copyright concerns as it does not appear to be merely factual. And in any event it's up to ordinary editing and discussion to determine whether it even merits a mention anywhere else, so deal with it on the article talk page. postdlf (talk) 04:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

IFFHS best clubs of the 20th century – Endorse, by overwhelming consensus – -- RoySmith (talk) 01:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I created an article under the name of IFFHS best clubs of the 20th century, we can see an example of this page in my draft page here. However the user GiantSnowman proposed that it be deleted and merged with the article IFFHS, we can see the deletion debate here. So after the sudden removal of the page, I was surprise but I respected the decision and I decided as agreed to merge (add) what it was removed in the IFFHS page. But I was surprise for the second time because the same user GiantSnowman removed it !!, we can see his act here. IFFHS is a notable organisation and it contributions are agreed by all the international institutions so what this notable organisation published about IFFHS best clubs of the 20th century is normally agreed in Wikipedia. We can see the second debate about this deletion in the IFFHS article's talk page here. Fayçal.09 (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion The AfD outcome was clear - delete. There were no !votes to merge, only a suggestion which was only supported by Faycal.09. Number 57 17:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Also worth noting that Faycal.09 has left a rather non-neutral request for input at WT:FOOTY#IFFHS best clubs of the 20th century (request), so probably needs to be made aware of WP:CANVASS. Number 5 7 17:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - my AFD nomination stated (obviously not clearly enough for some...) that deletion was my preferred option, with a merge as a last resort; nobody supported a merge, only deletion. The AFD close was valid and the topic should stay deleted as it is non-notable because it has not received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Giant Snowman 17:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Restore The deletion request of the user GiantSnowman is not logical because simply, the IFFHS is a notable organisation. His deletion request was very speedy done. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you have already been told but continue to fail to understand - nobody is doubting that the IFFHS is a notable organization; however we are questioning the notability of this specific award which just happens to be awarded by the organization. Two separate articles, two separate things! Giant Snowman 17:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry I understand very well cause simply i'm not a new contributer. I think that as a contributer I can have an opinion and for me, the article is logicaly notable same as FIFA Club of the Century or many others. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a contributor you can have an opinion, what you can't do is ignore the consensus of other contributions which are contrary to your opinion and impose it as some how being worth more than that consensus. That's effectively what you are doing here, the consensus from the AFD was that it wasn't notable and so it got deleted, so those others disagreed that logically it's notable same as ... --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I respect all opinions, however this removing request was done very quickly, only five contrbuters have voted. Generaly I always contribute and it's the first time that I put a request. Hope only that we take decision slowly and after good thinking. This article is about football club and I saw that it disturb and I don't know why. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not on the contrary at all, you are still saying "I thought it was too quick, so I put my view point ahead of anyone elses". If you had a concern regarding the speed of the deletion etc. discussing it rather than ignoring it was the right course. FWIW a deletion discussion is expected to run for 7 days, this ran for around 12, so it wasn't that quick. A deletion discussion isn't a vote and there isn't a quorum, so five people is adequate to form a consensus. If at the end of this review the current trend continues are you also going to decide this was too quick and ignore the outcome here too? Or if this results in some sort of overturn of the deletion would you expect someone else here to do likewise and ignore this? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close - I don't see any procedural error or action that is counter to discussion itself. This isn't the place to debate merging or anything else that is unrelated to the close of the AFD itself. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as closer I gave slightly stronger weight to the argument that WP:NOTSTATS, a policy, had some application here. I gave weak weight to arguments which relied on the notability of the IFFHS as an organization, because I the question of the notability of the organization and the notability of this particular list to be different questions.

A merge of all the information would seem to me to be opposed by NOTSTATS, and as such, I believe consensus precludes a full merge.

As for outcomes in-between, such as a redirect? AfD is a poor, blunt instrument, and should give deference to the normal editing process, doubly so when the discussion being closed lacks nuanced discussions of those options. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restore IFFHS is receiving official support from FIFA and Uefa and we are talking about top clubs (fully professional) so the list is notable--Lglukgl (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That has nothing to do with WP:DRV. We aren't here to replay the AFD, review is only to see if the closing admin did something wrong, misread consensus, or made some procedural error. If you think he misread the consensus or made some other mistake, then by all means, explain. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The AfD outcome said "delete". And also, Faycal.09 is "recruiting" users that share his own opinion (case of Lglukgl, which his argument can't be considered, in my opinion, because everybody knows that these clubs are fully-pro, this isn't an excuse). I think this "recruitment" isn't valid for a healthy discussion. MYS77 ^✉ 00:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- He is clearly violating WP:CANVASS by selectively contacting people that did not take part in the original discussion. [1], [2] and [3]. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endose Deletion - Initial concerns that whilst the organisation may be notable, this award is not. concerned about the Canvassing as well. Fenix down (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Recruiting, violating ???...!!! Are we in a war ??...!! If I want that you don't know I can send only an email. What I do evryone can do. You were contacted by the user GiantSnowman too [4], [5], [6]. Stop these stupidities please. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 09:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to calm down.—S Marshall T/C 11:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using a neutral message, I contacted all editors who participated in the AFD, including an editor who !voted to keep the article. Faycal's accusations of improper conduct are becoming increasingly tiresome - he has also recently accused me of abusing my position as an administrator. Giant Snowman 11:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some users were contacted before the 1st debate, and I had not accuse you because for me sending message for any debate's participation is normal. Now please I hope to change discuss because the real debate is about the article here, we don't need false problems such as who contact who. Normaly all notable wikipedia contributers can participate. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 11:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean that "Some users were contacted before the 1st debate"? Giant Snowman 11:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mean simply you contacted the admin to participate in the debate [7] and for me this act is normal because you are right and free to invite notable users. And normaly me too i'm free to invite too "notable" users to participate. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 12:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As already stated, I invited I contacted all editors who participated in the AFD, and yes that includes the closing admin. They have an interest in this subsequent discussion - whereas your notification to Lglukgl (who did not participate in the original AFD) is nothing but suspicious. Giant Snowman 12:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you see in my message to the user Lglukgl, I invited him to only participate, he is free to gives his opinion positive or negative. I don't have bad intention for doing that really. We are here in Wikipedia to serve knowledge to humanity, sometimes we can see injust article or act and we try to correct, sometimes we create articles. And finally we need to work together and that's my thinking. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But why did you choose that particular user? It's getting increasingly hard to AGF here, especially since you have since seemed to agree to do something in return for their participation here... Giant Snowman 12:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on a minute Faycal.09, there is no such thing as "notable" users. Contacting people who have previously participated is fine as long as you do so in a neutral way (your wording was actually ok), but only if you invite ALL of them, as GiantSnowman did. Or if you put a neutral notice on a WikiProject that covers the topic, that is fine because it is reaching out to a group of interested people, not just cherry picking your buddies who will take your side. You need to stop thinking of this as a "debate" (it is supposed to be a discussion, not a debate...) and stop thinking of anyone here as "notable" (we're all just a bunch of editors). What you did is a clear violation of WP:CANVASS, and can get your (rightly) blocked. It is a form of gaming the system. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To GiantSnowman, no the reason is because I worked with him to perform or create many articles and because he participate in the former debate, you invited users to participate, I invited too users to participate. For me it was a normal act.

To Dennis Brown, I invited a user Lglukgl right, however I also invited a closer admin j⚛e decker [8], I add invitation in the WikiProject Football [9]. I used terms "notable" mean good users, "discuss" mean debate. There is problem because this? --Fayçal.09 (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To answer about the notoriety of the article. These are some official links about these awards fifa, conmebol, al-hilal, goal. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, Lglukgl did NOT participate in the AFD - so why did you invite them? Other than the fact, that you admit, that you worked together in the past and you were hoping he would be sympathetic to your position (oh and big surprise he has expressed the same opinion as you!). Giant Snowman 14:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman I will not repeat and explain again and again, I work with the user Lglukgl same as many others, he is not my freind, I had invited neutral users, you must stop your acting, we are here to debate about the article not about me. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But Lglukgl, a user you work with, is not neutral - and who else did you invite? Yes we are here to discuss the merits of the deletion, but that is harder to do if you are attempting to sway the discussion in your favour. Giant Snowman 15:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Faycal, whether you understand it or not, I've blocked editors for doing what you did. Policy says you can't do that. I've voted here, so involved, but what you did is a clear violation of policy. Period. You don't call in your buddies to pad the vote. Read WP:CANVASS, I've already linked it enough times. Likely, it won't matter because votes by people you canvass will be thrown out by whoever closes the discussion, so you didn't help yourself. I do find it troubling that you don't even understand why that is offensive. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Brown why you said my buddies. You disagree a vote of the user Lglukgl and your free in your thinking and we can close this debate. For me I do a correct procedure, I made a request (in this page), I made a warring in the IFFHS talk page, I invite the closer admin, I add an invitation in the Wikiproject Football. You will not blame me because I contact one user. Now you had put your comment about that ok. Now I hope that we continue constructively to debate about the problem page.

Now about the page each one (you or me) can have his opinion and we must respect it. You said that the article is not notable, I respect your decision but we need a proof by adding a link for exemple. I said that the article is notable and I gives you some official links. If the users who participate in this debate vote that is not notable that's allright, let say their opinions. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the deletion: I read all the diffs. Faycal.09 has laid out a coherent case. It appears from his view, and the view of the other editors on the target article talk page, that the deletion does not preclude use of the deleted material. My understanding of WP policy is that if it's deleted, we don't turn around and recreate exactly the same article the community just ivoted to delete. It is permitted to make another article, but it cannot be a reproduction of the one just deleted.

I ivoted to delete and not merge that material because of WP:NOTSTATS. That's the problem with the material. It is all stats and no narrative summary that would be found in an encyclopedia. My feeling at the time, though I did not mention it, was that an external link could be inserted to what would have been the target article if merger had been the outcome. I still feel that all this material is too much. I also don't feel GiantSnowman has abused his admin privileges. He's sticking by the outcome of the AfD and that says to me he's protecting the project. My ivote here is to endorse the deletion. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the AFD close (the keeps were based on a misunderstanding of the notability guidelines) but other matters have arisen here that I shall comment on. There has clearly been a lot of misunderstandings at this DRV on both sides of the discussion. WP:CANVASS does not necessarily forbid approaching individual users on their talk pages. It is the wording and motivation that counts. Amongst the four examples of acceptable notifications are "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)" and "Editors known for expertise in the field". I do know know whether there was any justification in this case but there might have been. Secondly, although the AFD nominator was, as any editor would be, wholly entitled to remove the material from International Federation of Football History & Statistics here, one of the reasons given in the edit summary ("topic of 'continental clubs' has been determined to be non-notable at AFD, and 'Sporcle' is not a RS") was inappropriate. The AFD determined that there should not be an article on this subject but information on "non-notable" topics may indeed be included within other articles. However, lack of reliable sources, copyright infringement, or plain editorial judgement are all perfectly valid reasons for removing material. Thincat (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, clear consensus that this was not a notable topic and very weak and confused arguments in opposition (the comment that the organization is one "capable of producing notable materials" is just pure nonsense). On the question that's actually irrelevant to this forum, though the AFD result does not preclude this list or award of the IFFHS from being covered in another article, only from it being a standalone article, I share the concerns that duplicating the list in full may raise copyright concerns as it does not appear to be merely factual. And in any event it's up to ordinary editing and discussion to determine whether it even merits a mention anywhere else, so deal with it on the article talk page. postdlf (talk) 04:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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