Category:ART Giants Düsseldorf players – No consensus. Opinion is split between endorse and relist. This means that the decision to delete remains in force. As DRV closer, I could relist on my own authority in the case of a no consensus DRV, but I agree with those who argue that a different outcome would be unlikely. Sandstein 11:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Consensus interpreted incorrectly. Nominations with 1 keep vote and 1 delete vote usually gets relisted. Team page not having an article mentioned in the rationale, but was in draft and now exists. Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(as closer) the opposing argument was weak; as per WP:SMALLCAT, there are not enough articles on enwiki to warrant a category. — Qwerfjkltalk 15:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having potential is valid point against unjustified rationale of not having potential (SMALLCAT). Per the German wiki caterory, I see many articles passing GNG in English wiki. Also that 'players by club' is a part of larger sub-categorization scheme (again, allowed by SMALLCAT). Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pelmeen10, there is no reason to suppose that those articles will be written anytime soon - categories should come after articles, not before. — Qwerfjkltalk 18:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"anytime soon" is not part of SMALLCAT, it says "will never have more than a few members" So potential is potential, no matter when. Also it is logical for (pro or semi-pro) functioning club to have more such players. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pelmeen10, it's unreasonable to make a category in the assumption that one day there will be articles. — Qwerfjkltalk 06:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is only your opinion and not based on any policies. Please try to understand what SMALLCAT actually says and focus on that when used as an arguement. Closer should always be impartial, not biased. Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I used to close at CfD, I was always struck by how wide a gulf there is between what WP:SMALLCAT says (only small categories that by their very definition can't be expanded, e.g. "Husbands of Elizabeth Taylor", are prohibited) and how it's actually applied by CfD regulars (small categories are almost always deleted/merged). In this case I think the guideline as written would support a relist given the low participation and the disagreement/lack of evidence about whether a realistic potential for growth exists, but what we really need is an RfC to reconcile policy and practice in this area. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist given the very limited participation and the reasonable argument for keeping. WP:SMALLCAT only applies to categories with no potential for growth, and it mentions an example of a category which could include articles which haven't been written yet, so I don't think the closer's interpretation of there are not enough articles on enwiki to warrant a category is consistent with the actual wording of the guideline. Hut 8.5 17:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — not opposed to a relist, although it would be unlikely to have a different outcome. It is a fairly well written nomination. The nominator had tried to find more articles. At the time, this low (4th, 3rd, now 2nd) tier local community team didn't have its own article. Pelmeen10 made one a few minutes before this review request, full of red links. German wikipedia has different notability guidelines. [N]ot every verifiable fact (or the intersection of two or more such facts) in an article requires an associated category. There's no good reason to have these WP:NONDEFINING categories to tag ancillary minor league teams that some players joined before becoming notable. [D]o not add categories to pages as if they are tags. Sadly, lately we've seen rather a lot of tagging players with these low-level minor league teams (even prison teams). William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Low-level minor league? It is the same level as 2. Bundesliga. Professional club (did you really call it a tag?) in a fully-pro league. Club where a professional player has played during his career certainly is DEFINING characteristic. All hell would brake loose if you'd nominate all club categories for deletion. Wikipedia claims it's a work in progress - so every red link is a potential article. It was their first season in this level and the next season will be their second (clear factor for growth potential). It's not likely for all the red linked players playing for 2nd Bundesliga to be their career highlight - potential. It is likely for a player with current Wikipedia article to join the club - potential. When nominated, the nominator didn't even know there was a similar category in German wiki - I connected it to Wikidata a day later [1]. It's a shame deletion force is ofter stronger than any policy. All my comments are based on WP:SMALLCAT, which was the main arguement for deletion. So how does WP:SMALLCAT point to deleting the category? Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. CfD is not a high-traffic volume and relisting is very unlikely to produce a different outcome. @Pelmeen10 you can always re-create the category if or when the club has a bigger footprint on the English Wikipedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on misinterpreting WP:SMALLCAT? Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. As noted above, de.wiki has very different notability standards so the mere existence of topics there that could fill a category does not mean that en.wiki articles could exist and would be defined by this category. JoelleJay (talk) 04:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.