Victor Romfors – Refer to AfD. This is another one of those debates where the process question is inextricably intertwined with the notability question. There's no clear consensus in the discussion, but I think the core principle here is that speedy deletion is for obvious cases where there's essentially no chance the article would survive AfD. Given the amount of debate here on both sides, it's clear this wasn't an obvious case, so speedy deletion didn't apply. I'm going to restore the article and list it on AfD, where the merits can be discussed without the distraction of the simultaneous process debate. – -- RoySmith (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Victor Romfors (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Contesting G4 Speedy Delete. Bio article was properly re-created with new information after the hockey player had played professionally in a ~~2014-15~~ 2013-14 regular season game (not an exhibition game) of the Swedish Hockey League, which is a “Top Level League” as defined by WP:NHOCKEY/LA, and is therefore presumed notable by the standards established by the Ice Hockey Project. Deleting Admin User:Djsasso has been notified here. Dolovis (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] I would point out the game was played in the 2013-14 season not the 2014-15 season as mentioned. The game was both played before the Afd and was mentioned by User:Ravenswing in the Afd nomination statement. As such there was no new information in the page that wasn't already mentioned in the Afd. The page was almost identical to the one that was deleted. -DJSasso (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Sounds like textbook G4. If the reasons for deletion noted in the AfD have not been addressed, and the content is substantially the same, G4 applies. What's unusual is that the nominator, dolovis (talk · contribs), is a prolific editor, albeit recently unblocked. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dolovis&oldid=665145739. It is probably no surprise that the editor on returning is reacting to a large number of deletions of his previous contributions. I suggest, if it is seriously to be argued that more work can make Victor Romfors suitable, that the deleted versions be history merged and userfied for Dolovis to work on. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] The unblock notice indicates an agreement to an interaction ban, and this nomination is skirting that ban. I'd ask User:Thryduulf (for the Ban appeals sub-committee), to comment. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] @SmokeyJoe and Dolovis: That unblock notice explicitly states "This restriction may be enforced at the Arbitration enforcement page." and so that is where you should post if you think there has been a violation. The rest of this comment is me speaking strictly personally (not for BASC) and explicitly without prejudice to any discussion at AE, my view is that the nomination of this page did not breach the letter of the ban as the deletion was more than 30 days ago. Edits to this page by Dolovis after Djasso commented are violations of the letter though, but I would recommend against any punishment for this without a consensus at AE if anyone wants to take it there (I am not going to). I have no opinion about this article. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] I should note I agree with Thryduulf. He should be perfectly able to comment here. -DJSasso (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] It would be extremely unreasonable to forbid Dolovis from commenting here, really. *Ravenswing* 15:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] The reason for the AfD HAS been addressed with the newly created article. The old article was deleted based on the argument that Victor Romfors had not yet played a regular season game (only a European Trophy game). But the newly created article is based on the new and verified information that Romfors has since played in a 2013-14 Swedish Hockey League regular season game. See [1] & [2]. He made his SHL debut on February 8, 2014, [3] (the same day the AfD was opened). This new information was not in the original article, and was not brought to anyone's attention during the AfD. Dolovis (talk) 02:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] In that case, I recommend a history merge, undeletion, and listing at AfD (optionally, by anyone) to discuss whether this person should have an article. Disputed G4s should be discussed at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] merge/undelete and list as desired per SmokeyJoe. Further, I'd object to someone not being able to comment at a discussion they started because someone they have an interaction (or something slightly different in this case) ban with edited the discussion. But, that's up to AE. Hobit (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment: Given Dolovis has a history of misrepresenting the lone source used in this article (a bare stats list; of which the first iteration of this page was an example) to try and justify these sub-stub creations despite obviously making no attempt to verify that the subjects meet WP:GNG - something that has resulted in literally hundreds of his page creations being deleted in the past - I trust that he will bring evidence that this person has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial works from reliable sources in any relist/AFD. Given Dolovis could not even be bothered to update his recreation to reflect the player's actual current team, I must say that I am not optimistic. Reso lute 14:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] In fact, my comment in the original AFD very specifically addressed this. I can't say how unsurprised I am to find my prediction came true. Reso lute 14:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion - Actually, re-reading the original AFD, I see that Dolovis is misrepresenting the arguments made in that discussion, as well as its outcome. Dolovis is pinning his argument on a pass of WP:NHOCKEY, but he is (as is usual) completely ignoring that the majority of the commenters in the discussion explicitly pointed to GNG as well. And as the NHOCKEY SNG is a subsection of WP:NSPORTS, which explicitly states that an athlete must meet GNG, he can't even claim the player meets NHOCKEY at this point. Given Dolovis only changed about three words from original version to new, and given he has failed to produce evidence that the player meets GNG, I see no reason to overturn the G4 deletion. Reso lute 14:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] The relationship between this SNG and the GNG is a bit less clear than you claim. "Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline or another subject specific notability guideline." implies that one can meet the SNG and not the GNG. It feels like a SNG written by committee (like everything else here) as it jumps back and forth on SNG vs. GNG. Ignoring issues with this editor, this is (IMO) a reasonable situation for a relist as there is now a reasonable claim of meeting the SNG in question. Hobit (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] No, it says "another subject notability guideline" - i.e.: something other than NSPORTS, of which NHOCKEY is just a sub-section. i.e.: if an athlete doesn't meet the sports guidelines, but does for military personnel or politicians, etc. Reso lute 00:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] The GNG is also there. I see what you are saying, but it allows for meeting the SNG but not the GNG. Could you point out the part that the SNG indicates that it must meet the GNG also? Hobit (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] I'll grant you that I was ultimately misremembering the wording when I said "explicitly", but at some point logic must prevail when it comes to sourcing. The purpose of these SNGs is denote the point where we presume a subject meets GNG, based on our experience with the topic. But a presumption of notability is not a guarantee, and a majority in the AFD pointed to the lack of GNG. Also, to be perfectly honest, when drafting these SNGs, we did not anticipate the possibility of an ego-driven editor creating two-sentence junk pages on players with no coverage whatsoever simply so he could get the first edit. This is only one example out of easily a thousand similar pages created by Dolovis despite his obviously never once checking for sources beyond a stats sheet. And in this case, he didn't even read the stat sheet properly given he listed the player with the wrong team. Since the page stated only two things in total, the fact that he got a BLP 50% wrong is a little troubling. But that, of course, is an argument for a separate discussion. Reso lute 13:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Permit recreation. The primary issue in the original discussion is that Romfors didn't satisfy WP:NHOCKEY. That's no longer the case apparently and that's a material change. Mackensen (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - I have a hard time justifying an encyclopedia biography for a guy whose career line is 1 0 0 0 0 0, WP:NHOCKEY's "played in one game" be damned. FAQ #2 at WP:NSPORTS seems to indicate that a person is still subject to the WP:GNG. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Allow recreation - meeting any bastard stepchild of WP:N is generally taken as a standard for inclusion, which is met. Furthermote, two of the "delete" positions explicitly noted their position was based on zero games played in SHL, given that's no longer true, it's obvious a new discussion would be merited. Wily D 13:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion: The AfD was properly ruled and closed; there was no failure of process. Recreating it absent any evidence that this ephemeral player meets the GNG (which evidence Dolovis, matching his historic form in such matters, has declined to proffer), just so it can be AfDed all over again, strikes me as tendentious process-worship. I also question Dolovis' motive: what exactly is his game in digging up an 18-month-past AfD of a sub-stub article? *Ravenswing* 15:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion per Resolute, Tarc, etc. Hard to justify an encyclopedia article for one unspectacular appearance in one game. Using common sense, I don't see this passing an AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] On what basis can we endorse a G4 when, in fact, the subject now meets the SNG in question? The speedy was incorrect and AfD is the right place to discuss this, not DRV. Will it make it at AfD? I suspect not, though I think it has a chance. But this is the wrong venue for discussing SNG vs. the GNG. Hobit (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Because GNG was one of the arguments a majority of commenters in the original discussion also called out, and which has not been addressed in the slightest. When people were arguing there are insufficient sources from which to construct a Wikipedia article in the original debate, one would hope and expect that the (re-)creator would address this issue as well. He failed to do so, and instead recreated a nearly identical page. Reso lute 20:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Every single !vote noted that he didn't meet the GNG or the SNG. Not one indicated that he needed to meet both and one was very clear that meeting the SNG (which he does now) would be enough. Hobit (talk) 06:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] But just meeting a SNG isn't enough (eve I used to think it was, for a time), there's still a presumption/expectation that reliable sourcing must exist to support the article. So if someone voted "Keep because he played one game and that satisfies WP:NHOCKEY", then a closing admin should weigh that about the same as a "Keep he has lots of twitter followers". Tarc (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] I certainly disagree with you, and in any case that's a call for AfD, not an admin doing a speedy deletion. Hobit (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion, basically per Tarc. WP:ATHLETE has some ridiculously low bars for inclusion, actually the lower of the whole encyclopedia, especially for team sport players. This one is just an example, but these sort of sub-stubs of low profile sportpeople are created daily by the dozens (or by the hundreds). I don't oppose SNGs, but WP:ATHLETE is in some criteria spectacularly inconsistent with each and every other notability guideline. About the current case, I would be ashamed to open a discussion about someone who meets the letter of a so inclusive guideline in such a borderline way. Especially as one year and a half have passed since the AfD, but still his claim of notability is the same old game. Cavarrone 18:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Victor Romfors – Refer to AfD. This is another one of those debates where the process question is inextricably intertwined with the notability question. There's no clear consensus in the discussion, but I think the core principle here is that speedy deletion is for obvious cases where there's essentially no chance the article would survive AfD. Given the amount of debate here on both sides, it's clear this wasn't an obvious case, so speedy deletion didn't apply. I'm going to restore the article and list it on AfD, where the merits can be discussed without the distraction of the simultaneous process debate. – -- RoySmith (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contesting G4 Speedy Delete. Bio article was properly re-created with new information after the hockey player had played professionally in a ~~2014-15~~ 2013-14 regular season game (not an exhibition game) of the Swedish Hockey League, which is a “Top Level League” as defined by WP:NHOCKEY/LA, and is therefore presumed notable by the standards established by the Ice Hockey Project. Deleting Admin User:Djsasso has been notified here. Dolovis (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out the game was played in the 2013-14 season not the 2014-15 season as mentioned. The game was both played before the Afd and was mentioned by User:Ravenswing in the Afd nomination statement. As such there was no new information in the page that wasn't already mentioned in the Afd. The page was almost identical to the one that was deleted. -DJSasso (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like textbook G4. If the reasons for deletion noted in the AfD have not been addressed, and the content is substantially the same, G4 applies. What's unusual is that the nominator, dolovis (talk · contribs), is a prolific editor, albeit recently unblocked. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dolovis&oldid=665145739. It is probably no surprise that the editor on returning is reacting to a large number of deletions of his previous contributions. I suggest, if it is seriously to be argued that more work can make Victor Romfors suitable, that the deleted versions be history merged and userfied for Dolovis to work on. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The unblock notice indicates an agreement to an interaction ban, and this nomination is skirting that ban. I'd ask User:Thryduulf (for the Ban appeals sub-committee), to comment. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe and Dolovis: That unblock notice explicitly states "This restriction may be enforced at the Arbitration enforcement page." and so that is where you should post if you think there has been a violation. The rest of this comment is me speaking strictly personally (not for BASC) and explicitly without prejudice to any discussion at AE, my view is that the nomination of this page did not breach the letter of the ban as the deletion was more than 30 days ago. Edits to this page by Dolovis after Djasso commented are violations of the letter though, but I would recommend against any punishment for this without a consensus at AE if anyone wants to take it there (I am not going to). I have no opinion about this article. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should note I agree with Thryduulf. He should be perfectly able to comment here. -DJSasso (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be extremely unreasonable to forbid Dolovis from commenting here, really. Ravenswing 15:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the AfD HAS been addressed with the newly created article. The old article was deleted based on the argument that Victor Romfors had not yet played a regular season game (only a European Trophy game). But the newly created article is based on the new and verified information that Romfors has since played in a 2013-14 Swedish Hockey League regular season game. See [1] & [2]. He made his SHL debut on February 8, 2014, [3] (the same day the AfD was opened). This new information was not in the original article, and was not brought to anyone's attention during the AfD. Dolovis (talk) 02:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I recommend a history merge, undeletion, and listing at AfD (optionally, by anyone) to discuss whether this person should have an article. Disputed G4s should be discussed at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

merge/undelete and list as desired per SmokeyJoe. Further, I'd object to someone not being able to comment at a discussion they started because someone they have an interaction (or something slightly different in this case) ban with edited the discussion. But, that's up to AE. Hobit (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Given Dolovis has a history of misrepresenting the lone source used in this article (a bare stats list; of which the first iteration of this page was an example) to try and justify these sub-stub creations despite obviously making no attempt to verify that the subjects meet WP:GNG - something that has resulted in literally hundreds of his page creations being deleted in the past - I trust that he will bring evidence that this person has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial works from reliable sources in any relist/AFD. Given Dolovis could not even be bothered to update his recreation to reflect the player's actual current team, I must say that I am not optimistic. Resolute 14:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, my comment in the original AFD very specifically addressed this. I can't say how unsurprised I am to find my prediction came true. Reso lute 14:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - Actually, re-reading the original AFD, I see that Dolovis is misrepresenting the arguments made in that discussion, as well as its outcome. Dolovis is pinning his argument on a pass of WP:NHOCKEY, but he is (as is usual) completely ignoring that the majority of the commenters in the discussion explicitly pointed to GNG as well. And as the NHOCKEY SNG is a subsection of WP:NSPORTS, which explicitly states that an athlete must meet GNG, he can't even claim the player meets NHOCKEY at this point. Given Dolovis only changed about three words from original version to new, and given he has failed to produce evidence that the player meets GNG, I see no reason to overturn the G4 deletion. Resolute 14:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The relationship between this SNG and the GNG is a bit less clear than you claim. "Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline or another subject specific notability guideline." implies that one can meet the SNG and not the GNG. It feels like a SNG written by committee (like everything else here) as it jumps back and forth on SNG vs. GNG. Ignoring issues with this editor, this is (IMO) a reasonable situation for a relist as there is now a reasonable claim of meeting the SNG in question. Hobit (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, it says "another subject notability guideline" - i.e.: something other than NSPORTS, of which NHOCKEY is just a sub-section. i.e.: if an athlete doesn't meet the sports guidelines, but does for military personnel or politicians, etc. Resolute 00:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - The GNG is also there. I see what you are saying, but it allows for meeting the SNG but not the GNG. Could you point out the part that the SNG indicates that it must meet the GNG also? Hobit (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll grant you that I was ultimately misremembering the wording when I said "explicitly", but at some point logic must prevail when it comes to sourcing. The purpose of these SNGs is denote the point where we presume a subject meets GNG, based on our experience with the topic. But a presumption of notability is not a guarantee, and a majority in the AFD pointed to the lack of GNG. Also, to be perfectly honest, when drafting these SNGs, we did not anticipate the possibility of an ego-driven editor creating two-sentence junk pages on players with no coverage whatsoever simply so he could get the first edit. This is only one example out of easily a thousand similar pages created by Dolovis despite his obviously never once checking for sources beyond a stats sheet. And in this case, he didn't even read the stat sheet properly given he listed the player with the wrong team. Since the page stated only two things in total, the fact that he got a BLP 50% wrong is a little troubling. But that, of course, is an argument for a separate discussion. Reso lute 13:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Permit recreation. The primary issue in the original discussion is that Romfors didn't satisfy WP:NHOCKEY. That's no longer the case apparently and that's a material change. Mackensen (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - I have a hard time justifying an encyclopedia biography for a guy whose career line is 1 0 0 0 0 0, WP:NHOCKEY's "played in one game" be damned. FAQ #2 at WP:NSPORTS seems to indicate that a person is still subject to the WP:GNG. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation - meeting any bastard stepchild of WP:N is generally taken as a standard for inclusion, which is met. Furthermote, two of the "delete" positions explicitly noted their position was based on zero games played in SHL, given that's no longer true, it's obvious a new discussion would be merited. Wily D 13:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion: The AfD was properly ruled and closed; there was no failure of process. Recreating it absent any evidence that this ephemeral player meets the GNG (which evidence Dolovis, matching his historic form in such matters, has declined to proffer), just so it can be AfDed all over again, strikes me as tendentious process-worship. I also question Dolovis' motive: what exactly is his game in digging up an 18-month-past AfD of a sub-stub article? Ravenswing 15:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Resolute, Tarc, etc. Hard to justify an encyclopedia article for one unspectacular appearance in one game. Using common sense, I don't see this passing an AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis can we endorse a G4 when, in fact, the subject now meets the SNG in question? The speedy was incorrect and AfD is the right place to discuss this, not DRV. Will it make it at AfD? I suspect not, though I think it has a chance. But this is the wrong venue for discussing SNG vs. the GNG. Hobit (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because GNG was one of the arguments a majority of commenters in the original discussion also called out, and which has not been addressed in the slightest. When people were arguing there are insufficient sources from which to construct a Wikipedia article in the original debate, one would hope and expect that the (re-)creator would address this issue as well. He failed to do so, and instead recreated a nearly identical page. Reso lute 20:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Every single !vote noted that he didn't meet the GNG or the SNG. Not one indicated that he needed to meet both and one was very clear that meeting the SNG (which he does now) would be enough. Hobit (talk) 06:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But just meeting a SNG isn't enough (eve I used to think it was, for a time), there's still a presumption/expectation that reliable sourcing must exist to support the article. So if someone voted "Keep because he played one game and that satisfies WP:NHOCKEY", then a closing admin should weigh that about the same as a "Keep he has lots of twitter followers". Tarc (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly disagree with you, and in any case that's a call for AfD, not an admin doing a speedy deletion. Hobit (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, basically per Tarc. WP:ATHLETE has some ridiculously low bars for inclusion, actually the lower of the whole encyclopedia, especially for team sport players. This one is just an example, but these sort of sub-stubs of low profile sportpeople are created daily by the dozens (or by the hundreds). I don't oppose SNGs, but WP:ATHLETE is in some criteria spectacularly inconsistent with each and every other notability guideline. About the current case, I would be ashamed to open a discussion about someone who meets the letter of a so inclusive guideline in such a borderline way. Especially as one year and a half have passed since the AfD, but still his claim of notability is the same old game. Cavarrone 18:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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