Marcus Stead – AfD close endorsed Barkeep49 (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Marcus Stead (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Marcus Stead was subjected to a prolonged campaign of online abuse by Welsh nationalist campaigners on Twitter. They were openly discussing his Wikipedia page and were plotting to have it removed. Within one hour of those tweets appearing, a Wikipedia deletion discussion page had been opened. That same day, vandalism of Stead's Wikipedia page took place, which was quickly reversed. I do not believe the attempts to remove the Wikipedia page were started in good faith. The main complaints of the small number of individuals who sought deletion of the page in the discussion were that there were not verifiable, independent, reliable sources to back up the claims made in the article. Yet the article contained links to high-profile, verifiable sources such as The Guardian newspaper, which has a daily circulation of around 130,000 and has existed since 1821. Other sources included Radio Sputnik, an internationally-respected radio station with bases in Moscow, Edinburgh and Washington DC. Stead's Wikipedia page could have been improved, and indeed was improved in the last few days, but the reasons given for deletion were flimsy and were the result of an orchestrated social media campaign by Welsh nationalists. I urge Wikipedia to reconsider this decision. NeilA1978 (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Speedy endorse – It appears the filer has not conferred with the closer prior to filing as required. Aside from that, this DRV statement makes highly unlikely allegations. The DRV was nominated by a 1-year/1,000-edit editor. The delete !voters (going down the list of the AfD) have: 9 years/50k edits, 13 years/350k edits, 10 years/60k edits (and an admin), 9 years/78k edits, and 2 months/249 edits. Also, it was closed by an admin who is a very experienced AfD closer. Given all the experienced editors involved, it is nonsensical to believe that this article was deleted as "the result of an orchestrated social media campaign by Welsh nationalists", as the DRV statement alleges. Actually, looking at all the new accounts !voting keep, it seems the article was deleted despite off-wiki canvassing, not because of it. – Levivich 15:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Comment Your use of the word 'nonsensical' is highly inappropriate. I can easily prove Stead was subjected to abuse from Welsh nationalists on Twitter, and can upload images of Welsh nationalists discussing his Wikipedia page less than an hour before the deletion page was opened. Is there a means of uploading file images to this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeilA1978 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Self-endorse as the closing admin: Well, since the argument appears to be that the AfD was a conspiracy - or part of a conspiracy - to get rid of this article I'll say that nobody has offered any evidence of said conspiracy existing and we cannot throw out an AfD on a mere assertion. In addition, even if it was true that such a conspiracy exists valid arguments were offered that the topic does not meet inclusion criteria, which were not effectively contested - being on Sputnik or The Guardian as noted in the discussion is not a notability criterium. As I said in the closing statement, people need to write about someone before that someone can be included. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse the claim that the article was deleted because of a campaign by Welsh nationalists doesn't stack up at all. Six people supported deleting the article, four of those have more than 50,000 edits and clearly aren't here because of an abuse campaign. At least three aren't even British. The links to the Guardian and Sputnik Radio are really links to things the subject wrote on those outlets, which doesn't count towards demonstrating notability. Hut 8.5 21:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - The argument that there was brigading or canvassing to delete the article is less convincing than the obvious fact that the campaign to keep the article appears to be coordinated. The Delete arguments speak for themselves, so this was a valid close. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse The case in which an article would be overturned at DRV for something insidious like off-wiki canvassing to try to get the article deleted would be a good reason to overturn an improperly closed article, but that's just not the case here at all. That would require a demonstrated pattern of canvassing, but as has been pointed out above, the delete !voters were experienced and varied and focused on the sources, while the keep !voters all appeared to be relatively inexperienced and potentially canvassed, the exact opposite of what would be needed to overturn the close on those grounds. SportingFlyer T·C 23:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Self-endorse as the AfD nominator: The issues with the article's notability, verifiability, and independence from the subject were serious, and the text lapsed frequently into uncited, unnotable, or read-like-an-advertisement style. NeilA1978's claims of a conspiracy allude to myself or other experienced editors being part of an unsubstantiated organised political vendetta against the subject of the article. At one point I was accused of being a 'train-spotter', which sums up what a mess the AfD debate became. There was no evidence presented linking myself or others to the "Welsh nationalist campaigners", instead all we have is an un-cited and un-notable article worthy of deletion. I am concerned however that the article has been deleted previously in 2008 and 2009, and was recreated by NeilA1978 without ever addressing the issues raised in the past deletion. He even went as far as to remove citation needed tags after it was nominated. I have raised concerns in the AfD thread regarding the identity of 'Neil' due to similarities between his account and Marcus Stead social media details. As a result I think there is a high risk of NeilA1978 or other astroturf accounts re-creating this article in a few months or years time, in its recent form. Llemiles (talk, contributions) 00:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Strong endorse. The discussion found the sources wanting, and this seems to be becoming one big soapbox for the newer users who have decided this should be kept. Wikipedia is not here to point out great injustices. Even if the guy should be famous, unless there are new articles (or other media) made and edited by other people, people who are not and have no connection to Marcus Stead, we cannot have an article on him without quite probably violating our second pillar of WP:NPOV. Especially on controversial figures that have such strong advocates and yet also strong enemies in this cabal of Welsh nationalists, we cannot, unfortunately, guarantee that the article would remain neutral and not unduly positive or negative unless the independence and reliability of the sources are absolutely rock solid. The article must therefore, at this time, remain deleted according to our policies. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. It was properly deleted. Now that it is deleted, if someone wants to try better, the method involves WP:THREE. The subject's achievements and credentials are not what counts. The page was one of many unsuitable promotional pages that can be deleted as such, and so it is unfortunately true that people who have snuck their promotion into Wikipedia can be vulnerable to third parties threatening to draw Wikipedia community attention to the page, attention that will see the page deleted. Wikipedia is currently weak on deleting carefully disguised promotion, but don't worry, it is on the community's radar, and it will all be expunged one day. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Marcus Stead – AfD close endorsed Barkeep49 (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Marcus Stead was subjected to a prolonged campaign of online abuse by Welsh nationalist campaigners on Twitter. They were openly discussing his Wikipedia page and were plotting to have it removed. Within one hour of those tweets appearing, a Wikipedia deletion discussion page had been opened. That same day, vandalism of Stead's Wikipedia page took place, which was quickly reversed. I do not believe the attempts to remove the Wikipedia page were started in good faith. The main complaints of the small number of individuals who sought deletion of the page in the discussion were that there were not verifiable, independent, reliable sources to back up the claims made in the article. Yet the article contained links to high-profile, verifiable sources such as The Guardian newspaper, which has a daily circulation of around 130,000 and has existed since 1821. Other sources included Radio Sputnik, an internationally-respected radio station with bases in Moscow, Edinburgh and Washington DC. Stead's Wikipedia page could have been improved, and indeed was improved in the last few days, but the reasons given for deletion were flimsy and were the result of an orchestrated social media campaign by Welsh nationalists. I urge Wikipedia to reconsider this decision. NeilA1978 (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy endorse – It appears the filer has not conferred with the closer prior to filing as required. Aside from that, this DRV statement makes highly unlikely allegations. The DRV was nominated by a 1-year/1,000-edit editor. The delete !voters (going down the list of the AfD) have: 9 years/50k edits, 13 years/350k edits, 10 years/60k edits (and an admin), 9 years/78k edits, and 2 months/249 edits. Also, it was closed by an admin who is a very experienced AfD closer. Given all the experienced editors involved, it is nonsensical to believe that this article was deleted as "the result of an orchestrated social media campaign by Welsh nationalists", as the DRV statement alleges. Actually, looking at all the new accounts !voting keep, it seems the article was deleted despite off-wiki canvassing, not because of it. – Levivich 15:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your use of the word 'nonsensical' is highly inappropriate. I can easily prove Stead was subjected to abuse from Welsh nationalists on Twitter, and can upload images of Welsh nationalists discussing his Wikipedia page less than an hour before the deletion page was opened. Is there a means of uploading file images to this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeilA1978 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Self-endorse as the closing admin: Well, since the argument appears to be that the AfD was a conspiracy - or part of a conspiracy - to get rid of this article I'll say that nobody has offered any evidence of said conspiracy existing and we cannot throw out an AfD on a mere assertion. In addition, even if it was true that such a conspiracy exists valid arguments were offered that the topic does not meet inclusion criteria, which were not effectively contested - being on Sputnik or The Guardian as noted in the discussion is not a notability criterium. As I said in the closing statement, people need to write about someone before that someone can be included. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the claim that the article was deleted because of a campaign by Welsh nationalists doesn't stack up at all. Six people supported deleting the article, four of those have more than 50,000 edits and clearly aren't here because of an abuse campaign. At least three aren't even British. The links to the Guardian and Sputnik Radio are really links to things the subject wrote on those outlets, which doesn't count towards demonstrating notability. Hut 8.5 21:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The argument that there was brigading or canvassing to delete the article is less convincing than the obvious fact that the campaign to keep the article appears to be coordinated. The Delete arguments speak for themselves, so this was a valid close. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The case in which an article would be overturned at DRV for something insidious like off-wiki canvassing to try to get the article deleted would be a good reason to overturn an improperly closed article, but that's just not the case here at all. That would require a demonstrated pattern of canvassing, but as has been pointed out above, the delete !voters were experienced and varied and focused on the sources, while the keep !voters all appeared to be relatively inexperienced and potentially canvassed, the exact opposite of what would be needed to overturn the close on those grounds. SportingFlyer T·C 23:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Self-endorse as the AfD nominator: The issues with the article's notability, verifiability, and independence from the subject were serious, and the text lapsed frequently into uncited, unnotable, or read-like-an-advertisement style. NeilA1978's claims of a conspiracy allude to myself or other experienced editors being part of an unsubstantiated organised political vendetta against the subject of the article. At one point I was accused of being a 'train-spotter', which sums up what a mess the AfD debate became. There was no evidence presented linking myself or others to the "Welsh nationalist campaigners", instead all we have is an un-cited and un-notable article worthy of deletion. I am concerned however that the article has been deleted previously in 2008 and 2009, and was recreated by NeilA1978 without ever addressing the issues raised in the past deletion. He even went as far as to remove citation needed tags after it was nominated. I have raised concerns in the AfD thread regarding the identity of 'Neil' due to similarities between his account and Marcus Stead social media details. As a result I think there is a high risk of NeilA1978 or other astroturf accounts re-creating this article in a few months or years time, in its recent form. Llemiles (talk, contributions) 00:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong endorse. The discussion found the sources wanting, and this seems to be becoming one big soapbox for the newer users who have decided this should be kept. Wikipedia is not here to point out great injustices. Even if the guy should be famous, unless there are new articles (or other media) made and edited by other people, people who are not and have no connection to Marcus Stead, we cannot have an article on him without quite probably violating our second pillar of WP:NPOV. Especially on controversial figures that have such strong advocates and yet also strong enemies in this cabal of Welsh nationalists, we cannot, unfortunately, guarantee that the article would remain neutral and not unduly positive or negative unless the independence and reliability of the sources are absolutely rock solid. The article must therefore, at this time, remain deleted according to our policies. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. It was properly deleted. Now that it is deleted, if someone wants to try better, the method involves WP:THREE. The subject's achievements and credentials are not what counts.

The page was one of many unsuitable promotional pages that can be deleted as such, and so it is unfortunately true that people who have snuck their promotion into Wikipedia can be vulnerable to third parties threatening to draw Wikipedia community attention to the page, attention that will see the page deleted. Wikipedia is currently weak on deleting carefully disguised promotion, but don't worry, it is on the community's radar, and it will all be expunged one day. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mariam Anwar – "No consensus" closure endorsed. Many believe that the outcome was wrong, but renomination remains possible. Sandstein 08:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mariam Anwar (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) The very nomination has never been properly refuted, which says "Fails WP:ATHLETE which states "standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline." WP:CRIC that is cited in this AfD is a part of WP:ATHLETE which also has a FAQ at the top, Q1 says "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline." There is an agreement that the article doesn't meet WP:GNG. Hence the Keep votes have no grounds in guidelines or policy. Also, this AfD is now inconsistent with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabana Latif which pretty much has the same arguments and the situation (and even similar votes), nominated by the same person. I am proposing either overturn to Redirect for consistency with the mentioned AfD or Delete. Per [1] the closer says at the top notice "Unhappy with my AFD closure? Please list at Wikipedia:Deletion review." (plus a closure with generic "no consensus" without any explanation for such a lengthy discussion) Hence I am here. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse no consensus close- there was no consensus in that discussion. Although the boilerplate close was maybe a bit minimal, and it's disappointing that the canvassing pointed out in the discussion was allowed to pass without comment, I don't think anything would have changed if those two things had been dealt with properly. Reyk _YO! 12:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] What I am curious is...why are votes that aren't grounded in policy or guidelines being given merit here? This isn't a vote count. Also the consistency issue I mentioned. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Wrong outcome I can't bring myself to say overturn because that would imply the closer did something wrong. The outcome is wrong, but that's because the discussion was garbage, and I can't blame the closer for that. Many of the keep arguments are plainly absurd. We've got things like, All international cricketers (men and women) who play at Test/ODI/T20I level are automatically notable. Nobody is automatically anything. And, Keep ... until we have a major policy change to remove all sportspeople about whom little is known. Little being known about somebody is pretty much the definition of not being notable. I had looked at closing this and walked away because at the time I didn't feel up to walking into a minefield. But, we've got one source that's literally a name drop (i.e. her name buried in a list of names), and another that's a line score with zero commentary. We delete articles with sourcing like that every day. It's only in the sports world that stuff like that passes muster as meeting WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] PS, I agree with User:Reyk about the boilerplate closing statement. A complex discussion like this deserves a deeper analysis in the close. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and delete per WP:NOTAVOTE, WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. I completely understand why a closer might close that discussion as "no consensus", but in my view, that is the wrong close. All of the "Keep, meets WP:NCRIC" !votes should be discounted. What's left is nearly-unanimous consensus to delete. Our policies could not be clearer that if an article subject only meets a subject notability guideline like WP:NCRIC (part of WP:ATHLETE), and does not meet the general notability guideline (WP:GNG), then the article should be deleted. WP:N says that. WP:ATHLETE says that. The FAQ at WT:ATHLETE says that. The only SNG that is an alternative to GNG–which is WP:ACADEMIC–explicitly says This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc. and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline. (bold added). "Keep, meets ACADEMIC" is a valid, policy-based !vote, but "Keep, meets ATHLETE" is not. When an article is nominated for deletion, and challenged on "doesn't meet GNG" grounds, then GNG-satisfying sources must be put forward for the article to be kept. Editors may disagree about whether this source or that source meets GNG, but if no sources are put forward at all, !votes along the lines of, "No, it doesn't meet GNG, but keep anyway because it meets an SNG" (a.k.a. "Keep, meets NCRIC") are not policy based and should be discounted. (Recent NFOOTY example, and another example in the ProJared DRV below this one, and yet another in the Marcus Stead DRV above this one.) Any other result–if we allow a bunch of "Keep, meets SNG" !votes to "cancel out" "Delete, fails GNG" !votes, then everything will be closed with "no consensus" and kept by default, which undermines our notability guidelines. That's why non-policy-based !votes must be discounted; otherwise, it's useless to have policies at all. – Levivich 14:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse firstly the OP didn't discuss this with the closing admin first, as they were supposed to. S/he did leave a message for the closer but then filed this DRV fifteen minutes later. That's not a reasonable amount of time to wait for a response. That debate can't be closed as Delete unless "keep, meets NCRIC" is considered to be an invalid argument, and I don't think it's that bad. Yes, WP:ATHLETE does say that "the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline", but meeting the GNG is a property of an article subject, it doesn't depend on what research has been done by editors. It isn't possible to show definitively that an article subject doesn't meet the GNG, the most we can say is that we tried to find evidence and failed. Trying to find evidence that the subject meets the GNG often means that a monoglot English speaker Googled the subject and read what comes up. This may not always identify the best available sources, and if we have evidence that sources are likely to exist (such as, say, passing some SNG) then may be reasonable to conclude that the subject might nevertheless meet the GNG. The subject here comes from a country where most people do not speak English and was active about 12 years ago. I'm not saying that this argument applies here but I don't think we can discount the SNG in this situation. Hut 8.5 18:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Did you even read my nom? Talk page of the closer has a notice while editing (which was linked) that the AfD matters should be directly brought over here. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Point taken, but I don't think you can really complain about the closer not justifying their closure, since you didn't give them a chance to do so. Hut 8.5 20:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] I think you have misunderstood me. I don't want the closer to justify his closure, as I was clear in what my intentions are at the last sentence of a nomination: "proposing either overturn to Redirect for consistency with the mentioned AfD or Delete". In a good faith, I absolutely think 100 percent that Stifle had a rational thought behind the closure, whether I disagree or not. He isn't an admin just because. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse There's really no consensus to delete in this discussion, especially considering the difficulty from finding Pakistani sources from 2004, and an overturn would just be rehashing the arguments made in the AfD. The close should have been longer, probably, but I don't see any wrongdoing. SportingFlyer T·C 18:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Comment I am just stunned and confused right now. I have been considering to leave Wikipedia for a while but this may be the final "nail in the coffin" for me. I guess WP:ATH's clear notice in relation with WP:GNG doesn't exist, then? Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Is it really that important that Wikipedia shouldn't have a very short article on an obscure Pakistani cricketer? Besides you are basically complaining that the closing admin didn't privilege your argument over those of some other editors, which isn't much of a reason to leave either. Hut 8.5 20:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] It's kinda important because it creates an example that will be gladly taken by WP:JUSTAVOTE Keep WP:CRIC/WP:NFOOTY people. I am not complaining over privileges, but that own Wikipedia guidelines aren't properly followed. If someone thinks WP:ATH and WP:GNG relationship should change, so be it. But it should happen in respective talk pages, and not by trying to ignore things in AfDs. I think Levivich said it here better than I ever could. Leaving wise, absolutely not the only thing (besides being busy with studies and such). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] @Jovanmilic97: (edit conflict) With all due respect, why would this cause you to leave? I've nominated articles to DRV before and have not gotten the result I've desired, and it does not feel good, so I do understand where you're coming from! To me, though, that is clearly an AfD without a consensus without going into the merits of the case (apart from looking at the fact both sides make rational arguments), and no consensus AfDs are the most difficult to overturn. Are your issues with Wikipedia only with deletion, or do you have larger concerns? Frequently, if I'm frustrated with the result of a particular argument, I find that creating or expanding articles in a completely different topic area or performing rote admin work typically keep me focused, and while that may not work for you, I would encourage you to find an area of the project that makes you happy as a contributor, as I know you've made positive contributions in the past. SportingFlyer T·C 21:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] I don't wany this to turn off-topic now, but thanks for some kind words :). Like I have said above, some other things mostly off-Wikipedia related. Regarding the area of work, I have assigned myself to improving video game articles (with Forever Worlds, Big Kahuna Reef, Drift City, Nevermind (2015 video game), Battlestations: Pacific, Alida (video game) and Alien Swarm among recent examples), no worries. I think I will take your advice here, haven't thought of that way. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Renominate, whether now or in two months. I agree with RoySmith and I feel that the keep !votes miss the mark, yet IMO the outcome isn't necessarily bad. Having played at the highest level means that it's likely (notcertain) that Notability — our source material for writing articles — exists, though being outside the anglophone world, more time to look for sources might be justified. The keep !votes, however, seem to assume or assert accomplishments meeting ATH totally exempts an article from GNG, and the sources in the article amount to less material than the quote in the nom. Relisting again, noting that those votes may be weighted less is another option, but if that's good then closing as no consensus with no prejudice and the same note would be better — after all, the discussion had more or less tapered off and was largely arguing ATH counts as notable and not whether sources exist, both factors in favor of a fresh discussion. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Overturn, to delete or to redirect. We have the prerogative at DRV not only to overturn bad closes (this really wasn't one) but bad outcomes. RoySmith and Levivich explain why this outcome was wrong. Our job is to review deletion-related actions. So let's review it and overturn it. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse as a necessary application of ignore all rules, as follows. This DRV is "interesting" because it involves a conflict between the concept of special notability guidelines and the exact wording of the sports notability guideline, and therefore a conflict as to how to relate the sports notability guideline to the general notability guideline. The concept of special notability guidelines in general (at least in my opinion) is to provide clarity, especially because the general notability guideline is often difficult to apply. (I am sure that there are a few editors who will disagree, and will say that the special notability guidelines are either unimportant, for children, or of lesser value.) The sports notability guideline lists a multitude of specific cases where the sportsperson is presumed notable. The problem seems to be that it doesn't, as written, act as an alternative to the GNG, and so permits a deletion challenge if WP:NSPORTS is met but WP:GNG isn't met, to rebut the presumption. One problem with allowing GNG to override SNG has to do with systemic bias. Systemic bias is not unique to Wikipedia. Systemic bias in Wikipedia is partly the result of systemic bias in news media and similar reliable sources. Female cricketers from Pakistan are likely to be systemically underrepresented in Wikipedia due to underrepresentation in the reliable sources. In this case, strict application of the principle that GNG is required and the SNG is not an alternative would continue systemic bias, and treating the SNG as if it were the equal of the GNG will reduce systemic bias. The closer was justified in closing as No Consensus, against a rigid interpretation of the GNG, as a case of Ignore All Rules. The sports notability guideline should be revised to be an alternative to GNG due to the need to minimize systemic bias. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Procedural note: I have a standing waiver of all requirements to consult with me before listing reviews of my deletion closures here. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse own deletion as a reasonable reading of the debate, which had well argued points for and against deletion. Notability is a debatable point, and its presence or absence to be determined by consensus case by case, not by saying my policy is better than your policy. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. The close matched the discussion, and “delete” was not a possible close. Don’t like that? See advice at WP:RENOM. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse The close is reasonable. I do think closers should provide more explanation when closing a discussion that is difficult or passionate. --Enos733 (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse NSPORT creates a rebuttable presumption of notability, requiring those that which to challenge it to show that no additional sourcing at all exists to expand the article to at least the GNG (as per WP:BEFORE. This, for this player, requires local Pakistan sources. That wasn't done. I will say that the issue whether the original source potential faked numbers should be discussed because meeting NSPORT still requires factually true data from a reliable source, but in general there was not a proper nom to challenge the NSPORT presumption. --Masem (t) 02:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] @Masem: I don't understand your comment about " whether the original source potential faked numbers"? I don't see any evidence, or even speculation about that. That she played international cricket, and scored what she scored is factual and verifiable. The only question is around her notability. Harrias ^talk 09:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] @Masem:Oh okay, I've worked it out. It looks like you've misinterpreted the quote. "..it looks as though they were making up the numbers". It refers to when a team might only have 9 good players, so they just add 2 players without any particularly talent to "make up the numbers". See Wiktionary. It is not suggesting at all that numbers have been faked. Harrias ^talk 09:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse per SmokeyJoe. There was no consensus to delete, therefore it was kept. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse The Sports SNG is merely a shortcut to GNG. However, as has been pointed out by Masem the lack of evidence that a BEFORE was done with Pakistani sources suggests we can't conclude that she doesn't meet GNG. So we can't give more weight to the delete !voters. And as the keep !voters didn't offer sources and just fell back on the SNG we can't give them more weight. So no consensus it is. But I'll echo those who like closers in such thoughtful discussions to also put some thought into a closing statement. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Comment this was on my radar to propose a merge to List of Pakistan women ODI cricketers. I can understand why it was closed as n/c, but I do think that's probably a better solution whilst the search for sources continues. As I said on the AfD, I'm sympathetic to the arguments, but simply can't find in depth sources in any language Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Mariam Anwar – "No consensus" closure endorsed. Many believe that the outcome was wrong, but renomination remains possible. Sandstein 08:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The very nomination has never been properly refuted, which says "Fails WP:ATHLETE which states "standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline." WP:CRIC that is cited in this AfD is a part of WP:ATHLETE which also has a FAQ at the top, Q1 says "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline." There is an agreement that the article doesn't meet WP:GNG. Hence the Keep votes have no grounds in guidelines or policy. Also, this AfD is now inconsistent with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabana Latif which pretty much has the same arguments and the situation (and even similar votes), nominated by the same person. I am proposing either overturn to Redirect for consistency with the mentioned AfD or Delete. Per [1] the closer says at the top notice "Unhappy with my AFD closure? Please list at Wikipedia:Deletion review." (plus a closure with generic "no consensus" without any explanation for such a lengthy discussion) Hence I am here. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse no consensus close- there was no consensus in that discussion. Although the boilerplate close was maybe a bit minimal, and it's disappointing that the canvassing pointed out in the discussion was allowed to pass without comment, I don't think anything would have changed if those two things had been dealt with properly. Reyk _YO! 12:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I am curious is...why are votes that aren't grounded in policy or guidelines being given merit here? This isn't a vote count. Also the consistency issue I mentioned. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong outcome I can't bring myself to say overturn because that would imply the closer did something wrong. The outcome is wrong, but that's because the discussion was garbage, and I can't blame the closer for that. Many of the keep arguments are plainly absurd. We've got things like, All international cricketers (men and women) who play at Test/ODI/T20I level are automatically notable. Nobody is automatically anything. And, Keep ... until we have a major policy change to remove all sportspeople about whom little is known. Little being known about somebody is pretty much the definition of not being notable. I had looked at closing this and walked away because at the time I didn't feel up to walking into a minefield. But, we've got one source that's literally a name drop (i.e. her name buried in a list of names), and another that's a line score with zero commentary. We delete articles with sourcing like that every day. It's only in the sports world that stuff like that passes muster as meeting WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I agree with User:Reyk about the boilerplate closing statement. A complex discussion like this deserves a deeper analysis in the close. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete per WP:NOTAVOTE, WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. I completely understand why a closer might close that discussion as "no consensus", but in my view, that is the wrong close. All of the "Keep, meets WP:NCRIC" !votes should be discounted. What's left is nearly-unanimous consensus to delete. Our policies could not be clearer that if an article subject only meets a subject notability guideline like WP:NCRIC (part of WP:ATHLETE), and does not meet the general notability guideline (WP:GNG), then the article should be deleted. WP:N says that. WP:ATHLETE says that. The FAQ at WT:ATHLETE says that. The only SNG that is an alternative to GNG–which is WP:ACADEMIC–explicitly says This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc. and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline. (bold added). "Keep, meets ACADEMIC" is a valid, policy-based !vote, but "Keep, meets ATHLETE" is not. When an article is nominated for deletion, and challenged on "doesn't meet GNG" grounds, then GNG-satisfying sources must be put forward for the article to be kept. Editors may disagree about whether this source or that source meets GNG, but if no sources are put forward at all, !votes along the lines of, "No, it doesn't meet GNG, but keep anyway because it meets an SNG" (a.k.a. "Keep, meets NCRIC") are not policy based and should be discounted. (Recent NFOOTY example, and another example in the ProJared DRV below this one, and yet another in the Marcus Stead DRV above this one.) Any other result–if we allow a bunch of "Keep, meets SNG" !votes to "cancel out" "Delete, fails GNG" !votes, then everything will be closed with "no consensus" and kept by default, which undermines our notability guidelines. That's why non-policy-based !votes must be discounted; otherwise, it's useless to have policies at all. – Levivich 14:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse firstly the OP didn't discuss this with the closing admin first, as they were supposed to. S/he did leave a message for the closer but then filed this DRV fifteen minutes later. That's not a reasonable amount of time to wait for a response.
That debate can't be closed as Delete unless "keep, meets NCRIC" is considered to be an invalid argument, and I don't think it's that bad. Yes, WP:ATHLETE does say that "the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline", but meeting the GNG is a property of an article subject, it doesn't depend on what research has been done by editors. It isn't possible to show definitively that an article subject doesn't meet the GNG, the most we can say is that we tried to find evidence and failed. Trying to find evidence that the subject meets the GNG often means that a monoglot English speaker Googled the subject and read what comes up. This may not always identify the best available sources, and if we have evidence that sources are likely to exist (such as, say, passing some SNG) then may be reasonable to conclude that the subject might nevertheless meet the GNG. The subject here comes from a country where most people do not speak English and was active about 12 years ago. I'm not saying that this argument applies here but I don't think we can discount the SNG in this situation. Hut 8.5 18:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read my nom? Talk page of the closer has a notice while editing (which was linked) that the AfD matters should be directly brought over here. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but I don't think you can really complain about the closer not justifying their closure, since you didn't give them a chance to do so. Hut 8.5 20:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have misunderstood me. I don't want the closer to justify his closure, as I was clear in what my intentions are at the last sentence of a nomination: "proposing either overturn to Redirect for consistency with the mentioned AfD or Delete". In a good faith, I absolutely think 100 percent that Stifle had a rational thought behind the closure, whether I disagree or not. He isn't an admin just because. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse There's really no consensus to delete in this discussion, especially considering the difficulty from finding Pakistani sources from 2004, and an overturn would just be rehashing the arguments made in the AfD. The close should have been longer, probably, but I don't see any wrongdoing. SportingFlyer T·C 18:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am just stunned and confused right now. I have been considering to leave Wikipedia for a while but this may be the final "nail in the coffin" for me. I guess WP:ATH's clear notice in relation with WP:GNG doesn't exist, then? Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really that important that Wikipedia shouldn't have a very short article on an obscure Pakistani cricketer? Besides you are basically complaining that the closing admin didn't privilege your argument over those of some other editors, which isn't much of a reason to leave either. Hut 8.5 20:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's kinda important because it creates an example that will be gladly taken by WP:JUSTAVOTE Keep WP:CRIC/WP:NFOOTY people. I am not complaining over privileges, but that own Wikipedia guidelines aren't properly followed. If someone thinks WP:ATH and WP:GNG relationship should change, so be it. But it should happen in respective talk pages, and not by trying to ignore things in AfDs. I think Levivich said it here better than I ever could. Leaving wise, absolutely not the only thing (besides being busy with studies and such). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jovanmilic97: (edit conflict) With all due respect, why would this cause you to leave? I've nominated articles to DRV before and have not gotten the result I've desired, and it does not feel good, so I do understand where you're coming from! To me, though, that is clearly an AfD without a consensus without going into the merits of the case (apart from looking at the fact both sides make rational arguments), and no consensus AfDs are the most difficult to overturn. Are your issues with Wikipedia only with deletion, or do you have larger concerns? Frequently, if I'm frustrated with the result of a particular argument, I find that creating or expanding articles in a completely different topic area or performing rote admin work typically keep me focused, and while that may not work for you, I would encourage you to find an area of the project that makes you happy as a contributor, as I know you've made positive contributions in the past. SportingFlyer T·C 21:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wany this to turn off-topic now, but thanks for some kind words :). Like I have said above, some other things mostly off-Wikipedia related. Regarding the area of work, I have assigned myself to improving video game articles (with Forever Worlds, Big Kahuna Reef, Drift City, Nevermind (2015 video game), Battlestations: Pacific, Alida (video game) and Alien Swarm among recent examples), no worries. I think I will take your advice here, haven't thought of that way. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Renominate, whether now or in two months. I agree with RoySmith and I feel that the keep !votes miss the mark, yet IMO the outcome isn't necessarily bad. Having played at the highest level means that it's likely (notcertain) that Notability — our source material for writing articles — exists, though being outside the anglophone world, more time to look for sources might be justified. The keep !votes, however, seem to assume or assert accomplishments meeting ATH totally exempts an article from GNG, and the sources in the article amount to less material than the quote in the nom. Relisting again, noting that those votes may be weighted less is another option, but if that's good then closing as no consensus with no prejudice and the same note would be better — after all, the discussion had more or less tapered off and was largely arguing ATH counts as notable and not whether sources exist, both factors in favor of a fresh discussion. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, to delete or to redirect. We have the prerogative at DRV not only to overturn bad closes (this really wasn't one) but bad outcomes. RoySmith and Levivich explain why this outcome was wrong. Our job is to review deletion-related actions. So let's review it and overturn it. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a necessary application of ignore all rules, as follows. This DRV is "interesting" because it involves a conflict between the concept of special notability guidelines and the exact wording of the sports notability guideline, and therefore a conflict as to how to relate the sports notability guideline to the general notability guideline. The concept of special notability guidelines in general (at least in my opinion) is to provide clarity, especially because the general notability guideline is often difficult to apply. (I am sure that there are a few editors who will disagree, and will say that the special notability guidelines are either unimportant, for children, or of lesser value.) The sports notability guideline lists a multitude of specific cases where the sportsperson is presumed notable. The problem seems to be that it doesn't, as written, act as an alternative to the GNG, and so permits a deletion challenge if WP:NSPORTS is met but WP:GNG isn't met, to rebut the presumption. One problem with allowing GNG to override SNG has to do with systemic bias. Systemic bias is not unique to Wikipedia. Systemic bias in Wikipedia is partly the result of systemic bias in news media and similar reliable sources. Female cricketers from Pakistan are likely to be systemically underrepresented in Wikipedia due to underrepresentation in the reliable sources. In this case, strict application of the principle that GNG is required and the SNG is not an alternative would continue systemic bias, and treating the SNG as if it were the equal of the GNG will reduce systemic bias. The closer was justified in closing as No Consensus, against a rigid interpretation of the GNG, as a case of Ignore All Rules. The sports notability guideline should be revised to be an alternative to GNG due to the need to minimize systemic bias. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note: I have a standing waiver of all requirements to consult with me before listing reviews of my deletion closures here. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse own deletion as a reasonable reading of the debate, which had well argued points for and against deletion. Notability is a debatable point, and its presence or absence to be determined by consensus case by case, not by saying my policy is better than your policy. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The close matched the discussion, and “delete” was not a possible close. Don’t like that? See advice at WP:RENOM. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The close is reasonable. I do think closers should provide more explanation when closing a discussion that is difficult or passionate. --Enos733 (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse NSPORT creates a rebuttable presumption of notability, requiring those that which to challenge it to show that no additional sourcing at all exists to expand the article to at least the GNG (as per WP:BEFORE. This, for this player, requires local Pakistan sources. That wasn't done. I will say that the issue whether the original source potential faked numbers should be discussed because meeting NSPORT still requires factually true data from a reliable source, but in general there was not a proper nom to challenge the NSPORT presumption. --Masem (t) 02:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: I don't understand your comment about " whether the original source potential faked numbers"? I don't see any evidence, or even speculation about that. That she played international cricket, and scored what she scored is factual and verifiable. The only question is around her notability. Harrias ^talk 09:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem:Oh okay, I've worked it out. It looks like you've misinterpreted the quote. "..it looks as though they were making up the numbers". It refers to when a team might only have 9 good players, so they just add 2 players without any particularly talent to "make up the numbers". See Wiktionary. It is not suggesting at all that numbers have been faked. Harrias ^talk 09:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per SmokeyJoe. There was no consensus to delete, therefore it was kept. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The Sports SNG is merely a shortcut to GNG. However, as has been pointed out by Masem the lack of evidence that a BEFORE was done with Pakistani sources suggests we can't conclude that she doesn't meet GNG. So we can't give more weight to the delete !voters. And as the keep !voters didn't offer sources and just fell back on the SNG we can't give them more weight. So no consensus it is. But I'll echo those who like closers in such thoughtful discussions to also put some thought into a closing statement. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this was on my radar to propose a merge to List of Pakistan women ODI cricketers. I can understand why it was closed as n/c, but I do think that's probably a better solution whilst the search for sources continues. As I said on the AfD, I'm sympathetic to the arguments, but simply can't find in depth sources in any language Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

ProJared – WP:SNOW Endorse. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
ProJared (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) I am puzzled as to why the AFD was closed as delete when there are more Keep votes than Delete. There is a bigger consensus to Keep than Delete, seeing as there are 6 Keep votes, and only 3 Delete votes. Also, an entertainer's popularity does factor into their notability, per criterion #2 of WP:ENT: Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. I'd say the fact that the subject used to have 1 million subscribers meets that criterion, so I'm not sure why the closing admin asserted that "popularity is immaterial". Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Closer's comment: Because Sk8erPrince did not discuss this with me before starting this DRV, as per the instructions, I'll not be commenting here. Sandstein 06:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Comment Sk8erPrince please read WP:POLL. "Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy; even when polls appear to be "votes", most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis of consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule.". So your argument of Keep leading the votes is pretty much useless. No opinion on the AfD right now, plus you haven't discussed this with Sandstein (and with the absence of a good reason to not do so) per the instructions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] P.S. There were 4 delete votes (the nominator counts as one). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. AfD is not a vote and the rationale for this DRV seems to be based on vote counting alone. --Randykitty (talk) 08:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse The keep voters made various assertions, but these were not backed up by the required sources. WP:ENT doesn't obviate the need for sources.--Pontificalibus 10:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse- it's not a vote and WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES arguments shouldn't be given much weight. Reyk _YO! 11:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Could we get a temp undelete please? Arguments in the AfD argue about the quality of sources in the article and if ONEEVENT applies. Need to see the sources in the article to evaluate the arguments. Hobit (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Done. --Randykitty (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse "there were more keep than delete votes" isn't a valid reason to reverse a decision, per WP:NOTAVOTE. Meeting the criterion at WP:ENT does not mean that it is notable, as stated by WP:ENT itself. "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included"._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse – filer hasn't conferred with closer before filing this DRV as required, and in any event, meeting ENT2 isn't an alternative to meeting GNG. The article was challenged on WP:BLP1E grounds, and that challenge went unanswered. Seeing as almost all of the sources were written in May 2019, that strongly supports the BLP1E arguments. Thus, the non-policy-based keep !votes were properly discounted by the closer, and after discounting, the closer found the correct result: consensus to delete. – Levivich 14:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] @Levivich: That's not true. I specifically addressed that here. Further on, I even suggest the so-called one event could be entirely removed from the article. --SVTCobra 17:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Sorry, I didn't mean that quite so literally. The BLP1E challenge "went unanswered" means nobody posted WP:THREE examples of WP:SIGCOV that were not all about WP:ONEEVENT. – Levivich 19:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Wow, there's a lot of sources in the article, the majority of which are from the 9 May-21 May 2019 time period about the specific incident. I think there's more than enough to validate deletion based on WP:ONEEVENT applying. SportingFlyer T·C 18:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] endorse Not seeing sources enough to really do much toward WP:N before the ONEEVENT. So the arguments about WP:ONEEVENT are quite reasonable. Hobit (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse per others. In fact, even Jaiden Animations had four times more subscribers and she still stays deleted. No prejudice if he gains enough other SIGCOV to override BLP1E (after all Eugenia Cooney - another YTer involved in BLP1E - is being DRV'd on that ground as we speak) or if someone makes ProJared controversy - the event did have WP:SUSTAINED coverage over a few weeks - just because BLP1E is people-only, but this is one of many times policy overrides one's supposed notability. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

ProJared – WP:SNOW Endorse. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am puzzled as to why the AFD was closed as delete when there are more Keep votes than Delete. There is a bigger consensus to Keep than Delete, seeing as there are 6 Keep votes, and only 3 Delete votes. Also, an entertainer's popularity *does* factor into their notability, per criterion #2 of WP:ENT: Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. I'd say the fact that the subject used to have 1 million subscribers meets that criterion, so I'm not sure why the closing admin asserted that "popularity is immaterial". Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's comment: Because Sk8erPrince did not discuss this with me before starting this DRV, as per the instructions, I'll not be commenting here. Sandstein 06:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sk8erPrince please read WP:POLL. "Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy; even when polls appear to be "votes", most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis of consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule.". So your argument of Keep leading the votes is pretty much useless. No opinion on the AfD right now, plus you haven't discussed this with Sandstein (and with the absence of a good reason to not do so) per the instructions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. There were 4 delete votes (the nominator counts as one). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. AfD is not a vote and the rationale for this DRV seems to be based on vote counting alone. --Randykitty (talk) 08:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The keep voters made various assertions, but these were not backed up by the required sources. WP:ENT doesn't obviate the need for sources.--Pontificalibus 10:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse- it's not a vote and WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES arguments shouldn't be given much weight. Reyk _YO! 11:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could we get a temp undelete please? Arguments in the AfD argue about the quality of sources in the article and if ONEEVENT applies. Need to see the sources in the article to evaluate the arguments. Hobit (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Randykitty (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse "there were more keep than delete votes" isn't a valid reason to reverse a decision, per WP:NOTAVOTE. Meeting the criterion at WP:ENT does not mean that it is notable, as stated by WP:ENT itself. "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included"._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – filer hasn't conferred with closer before filing this DRV as required, and in any event, meeting ENT2 isn't an alternative to meeting GNG. The article was challenged on WP:BLP1E grounds, and that challenge went unanswered. Seeing as almost all of the sources were written in May 2019, that strongly supports the BLP1E arguments. Thus, the non-policy-based keep !votes were properly discounted by the closer, and after discounting, the closer found the correct result: consensus to delete. – Levivich 14:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: That's not true. I specifically addressed that here. Further on, I even suggest the so-called one event could be entirely removed from the article. --SVTCobra 17:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean that quite so literally. The BLP1E challenge "went unanswered" means nobody posted WP:THREE examples of WP:SIGCOV that were not all about WP:ONEEVENT. – Levivich 19:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Wow, there's a lot of sources in the article, the majority of which are from the 9 May-21 May 2019 time period about the specific incident. I think there's more than enough to validate deletion based on WP:ONEEVENT applying. SportingFlyer T·C 18:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
endorse Not seeing sources enough to really do much toward WP:N before the ONEEVENT. So the arguments about WP:ONEEVENT are quite reasonable. Hobit (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per others. In fact, even Jaiden Animations had four times more subscribers and she still stays deleted. No prejudice if he gains enough other SIGCOV to override BLP1E (after all Eugenia Cooney - another YTer involved in BLP1E - is being DRV'd on that ground as we speak) or if someone makes ProJared controversy - the event did have WP:SUSTAINED coverage over a few weeks - just because BLP1E is people-only, but this is one of many times policy overrides one's supposed notability. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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