Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 6

Shane Duggan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Shane Duggan meets WP:GNG. He played as a full-time pro in the League of Ireland for a number of years. He has represented Ireland at U23 level. Hsetne (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from closer: This isn't my editing subject area, so I relied entirely on the AFD participants' comments for my close. There weren't a lot of participants, but they were unanimous, and I figured deletion based on lack of GNG coverage or failure to meet subject-specific notability guidelines is easy to overturn, simply by showing that the subject meets either WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. As represented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, the League of Ireland is not fully pro, so I don't see a rebuttal of the AFD judgment that he fails WP:NFOOTBALL; the article at the time of its deletion also included that claim, and the AFD participants judged it insufficient. Re: WP:GNG, Hsetne needs to present the multiple reliable sources that show significant coverage of Shane Duggan to establish that GNG is satisfied, rather than merely assert that GNG is met. postdlf (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• It's very hard to censure Postdlf for closing an AfD in accordance with the unanimous opinion of the participants, you know. That's even more true when we're dealing with a biography of a living person where the sources have been called into question. I agree that evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources would be sufficient to overturn the close, but unless such evidence is provided I would expect an endorse outcome to this deletion review.

  Postdlf—not arising from this particular AfD, but as a general point—I've observed that you don't appear to provide closing statements, and I wonder whether you would be prepared to consider changing your practice by adding a few words of explanation to each close, perhaps with a link to the relevant policy? While that's not necessary for experienced Wikipedians, I think it would be better if our processes were more transparent to people unfamiliar with Wikipedia.—S Marshall T/C 22:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • After some resistance to the idea, I've gotten more in the habit of providing closing statements where the discussion was really contentious and drawn out (e.g., here or here), but I still don't see a need or point to providing a closing statement where the AFD was as clear as this one. postdlf (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist for another 7 days so that Hsetne (talk · contribs) can make his case. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't that premature before we've seen that there even is a case? This is the first place that should be presented before anything is undone. postdlf (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe. Is there any harm in relisting? I haven't seen the deleted article. I don't see real difference in (a) undeleting for a relist and (b) userfying to allow Hsetne to make his case. I recommend (a) as it invited more people in, especially the previous participants in the AfD, while (b) will probably be a discussion between you and Hsetne. I think relist is better than running AfD2 here. Obviously, no criticism of the close, but we do want to accommodate new editors. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, arguably there is harm in relisting. Discussions are "closed" after the AfD is over because a conclusion has been reached, and I think it's better if there's an element of finality to that, unless and until new evidence comes to light or sufficient time has passed to allow consensus to change. I mean, there seems little value in closing a discussion if a deletion review will reopen it again on request. Of course there are many times when there really are substantive grounds for DRV to direct that a discussion should be reopened, but I think those grounds have to be more substantial than those presented here.—S Marshall T/C 00:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the close of a discussion is to be regarded as carrying FINALITY, then low-participation discussions would have to be closed as "no consensus" because two or three in isolation are a pretty weak representation. Also, we do not welcome new participants, to the project generally, or to the AfD process pages specifically, by telling them they can't be heard because of some rule.

          On the other hand, Hsetne would be more persuasive if he would provide the sources that meet the WP:GNG, or cite (link) specifically the part of the specific notability guideline that is met by being "a full-time pro in the League of Ireland" or having "represented Ireland at U23 level" --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

          • No one's saying "they can't be heard"; we're just saying that they should show they actually have something to say beyond an unsupported opinion, as you acknowledge in your second paragraph. I have no interest in keeping anything deleted that shouldn't be deleted regardless of whether I was the one who deleted it, but it's a waste of time to undelete and relist something purely out of some concern that we're biting newbies, without even a prima facie showing that the wrong decision was reached. Hsetne (talk · contribs) may be a "new[er] participant" than you or I, but he has been editing since October of last year, has participated in numerous XFDs, and has even started CFDs and AFDs himself. postdlf (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Postdlf, yes, you are right. The now-bolded text should come first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, as no evidence has been presented that the deletion process was not followed properly, nor has new evidence been provided that was not available during the AFD. As noted at the top of the deletion review main page, deletion review is not to be used simply because you disagree with a deletion discussion's outcome for reasons previously presented. Stifle (talk) 07:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - "I Disagree" is not a valid reason to file a DRV, and no rebuttal was given for this league being classified as "not fully professional", thus a football notability fail. Tarc (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who's giving "I Disagree" as a reason? Hsetne (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you? Tarc (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure The unanimous consensus during the AfD discussion was that Duggan failed WP:NFOOTBALL, and nothing indicates that the participants in that discussion interpreted the guideline incorrectly. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• There were links in his article supporting how Shane Duggan "represented Ireland at U23 level". Cork City F.C. were fully pro when he joined the club in 2008, and in 2009. He also received significant coverage in the national media for being named in the PFAI First Division Team of the Year, there was a link in his article suppporting that. Hsetne (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Duggan representing Ireland at U23 level covered in the national media,

http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2010/0928/irelandunder23.html

http://www.extratime.ie/newsdesk/articles/4380/

Shane Duggan being named in the PFAI First Division Team of the Year was carried in the national media,

http://www.irishtimes.com/sports/soccer/2010/1021/1224281703779.html

http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2010/1021/pfai.html

Obviously that's not taking into account coverage in national newspapers.

I'd also like to add that I've been involved in (starting and contributing to) a number of AfDs (and CfDs) in relation to Irish footballers, in support of deletion in many cases, however Shane Duggan is one who is definitely notable WP:GNG. Hsetne (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of those four links, the first two are identical, and all four mention Shane Duggan precisely once each (the first two contain three "false positive" mentions of Robert Dugggan, whose article was also previously deleted). Passing mentions are explicitly not enough for WP:GNG. Do any sources actually address him in detail? Alzarian16 (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a radio interview (on red fm, a major radio station in Cork City and County) with him http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgGn6auo7ZA

He hit the headlines in the national print media this morning after scoring the winner against Waterford United last night - "Duggan blasts Cork top" - http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/soccer/duggan-blasts-cork-top-150951.html Hsetne (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - the deletion process was followed correctly, and I maintain that the correct decision was made - no evidence of notability has been presented, as this article fails both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 12:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• As much as I'm not a fan of NFOOTBALL's obsession with full-time leagues, there's no question that the AfD closer was not at fault in evaluating the consensus reached there. If you think you can round up more reliable sources on the subject which show that he's notable (simply being a member of the team of the year probably isn't enough) then it might be worth requesting userfication of the article until it can be expanded. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about NFOOTBALL. The League of Ireland is just behind the Finnish Veikkausliiga in the UEFA Coefficient rankings ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_coefficient#Current_ranking ), which wiki says is fully pro and allowed to have player articles. The UEFA Coefficient is a much better indication of whether a league's players are notable than wikipedia's definitions. I'll have a look at getting more sources but it'll take time, busy at the moment Hsetne (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from nominator. The player in question has not played for his country at senior international level or appeared in a fully professional league, which fails both criteria stated at WP:NFOOTBALL. He was contracted as a youth team player to a club in a fully professional league, but did not play at first team level before being released. I have seen no significant coverage in reliable sources which demonstrates that the player is either an exceptional athlete or has played in a major international competition. I have seen plenty of coverage which could be considered trivial and routine, so he doesn't pass WP:GNG either. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Hatch (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article was deleted, in my opinion on very weak grounds. In the discussion it becomes quite clear that many users thinks it should be Kept. I find that the AFD discussion should have resulted in a No Consensus decision as I think its definitly no clear consensus for Delete. Five comments and !votes in favour of Keep atleast for now. And four Delete !votes with no real explaination to its decision except the usual guidelines that can be interpretated in any way the user find it suitable. Either way 5-4 and with in my opinion good reasons for the Keep-side I will suggest that the article should be restored on Wikipedia per the No Consensus AFD.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist, at least on procedural grounds. The AfD was improperly formed on February 28 and didn't get listed until March 8. It was then closed on March 9, it should have run for 7 days at that point or been relisted to cure the error. There's also a very good argument that it should have closed as no consensus in its current state, the "comment" votes show uncertainty as to the proper outcome.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• EndorseOverturn – Overturn based on procedural grounds, but not on nomination discussion. I see only one delete (BabbaQ) and one comment (UltraExactZZ) that supported marginally supported a keep decision. One comment (Mezuu64) supported another's Neutral comment(RFBailey)and one comment (4meter4) asked why the AfD was not closed after 10 days. One can only assume since the other comment did not specify keep or delete that they were neutral. I do not see the 5 delete !votes the nominator is referencing. ttonyb (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per Milowent. An AfD should be listed on the AfD log for seven days. Otherwise, participation in the AfD will be disproportionately affected by interested parties (ie editors who watchlist the article or participate in projects for which there is relevant deletion sorting). --Mkativerata (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist The fact that it was off the log for 9 of the 10 days it was listed makes it next to imposible to be sure if consensus was really reached. Best thing to do is just relist it and run it correctly.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• edit history temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review , DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and reopen/relist per Milowent. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, Milowent's nailed it. DRV's purpose is to determine whether the deletion processes were correctly followed, and they weren't. I don't think we have any choice but to relist. No blame attaches to Wizardman, so I would prefer to avoid the word "overturn" in this case.—S Marshall T/C 22:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and reopen/relist per Milowent. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. On a procedural basis, this should probably be relisted - it was added to the log late, as noted. That said, there are an awful lot of comments for an unadvertised AFD, and I think the discussion was properly interpreted by Wizardman - Concerns about notability were not addressed during the AFD. I note also that the article was started after the subject was murdered, which indicates that notability was not present prior to the subject's death. I touched on this concern in my fence-sitting comment, and others hinted at it as well - and this was not addressed by anyone favoring Keep. So, on the merits, I would endorse. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 02:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. DRV is not a place to re-argue matters that would properly be discussed at the AFD discussion, but it is a place where we catch procedural errors. As mentioned above, I find that the fact the listing was only open on the AFD daily page for two days to be material. Stifle (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - WP:BURO, there's no need to relist just for the sake of technical bureaucracy. A reasonable consensus to delete was found in the AfD, and the keeps pretty much amounted to "maybe it'll be more notable someday". Tarc (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it has been fairly established that so was not the case Tarc. Technical bureacracy? This is a matter of a article being deleted when in fact there were no consensus for deletion. And what is a reasonable consensus. either it is a consensus or not. If it is in fact as you say only a "reasonable consensus" then it should be relisted anyway to get a "stronger consensus for delete or keep,"--BabbaQ (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact there was, you just (per usual) happen to disagree. I would not be much opposed to a simple relist is that is how this trends, but an overturn to NC is out of the question, IMO. Tarc (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you could atleast once post a message without a "mini-personal attack" against me and other users that just happen to disagree with you on a subject. OK but back to the issue.,. that sounds like a good way of solving it.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He can't BabbaQ, its like a tourette's thing, but it does seem endearing over time.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 23:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was pretty mild and not even worth commenting on, but I guess some skin is thinner than others. At least I didn't give him the "Wikipe-tan supporter" treatment. :) Tarc (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• My recommendation would be to overturn and make it a No Censensus decision for re-evaluation in a few months time when the situation can be fully evaluated.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – There was a consensus for this AfD. The question is whether or not it was a nonprocedural consensus. If this is overturned, why would this have to wait any period of time to reevaluate? ttonyb (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

its a matter of opinion I guess.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist procedurally, given the fact that the deletion process was not followed properly here. I think there was a consensus to delete present in the AfD, but the discussion was listed on the AfD log just one day before it closed. Only one editor voted after the bot listed it on the log; the rest presumably found the discussion in other ways. Like Milowent and Mkativerata, I feel that listing on the log is the best way to expose the AfD to uninvolved editors for the formation of an organic consensus. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont agree with you on that a Delete consensus had been reached. However I agree with you on the rest that the AFD was inproperly closed and a No consensus should have been reached if anything.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - per Milowent. How can a consensus have possibly been reached? The whole thing wasn't conducted properly. Orphan Wiki 20:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist Jclemens (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist on procedural grounds, totally endorse closing debate (as is) as a delete. I'm not impressed by BabbaQ's absurd and misleading appropriation of the neutrals and comments to the keep side though, we can just as easily present this as an 8-1 KO delete if we count the delete votes as 'people who voted delete or didn't care either way'. In future I suggest sticking to the facts. Bob House 884 (talk) 08:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im not impressed by you (in my opinion) personal attack against me. Definitly not the right forum for that. In the future I suggest you stick to why you believe it should be relisted or not without going on the attack mode. What is absurd is your 8-1 KO delete comment which is totally inappropriate and misleading, and your claim that it was a Delete consensus when it definitly wasnt. I make no excuses what so ever for sticking up for this articles re-creation and proper evaluation of its notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you'll observe, my entire point is that the 8-1 comment is absurd. I'm simply stating that you shouldn't be presenting a !poll where the result was 5(D)-1(K) and 3 non-!votes as though the non-!votes default to keep, it's a cheap trick and it doesn't work because people tend to read the discussion before commenting, although I am in no way insinuating that you were deliberately being dishonest. You'll notice as well that this isn't a personal attack but rather a comment about one paticular action you have made as a user which is directly relevant to this discussion, and I have kept my rationale seperate from my comments and in fact agree with you here. Bob House 884 (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BURO. This blatant case of WP:CRIME will certainly not end in anything other than deletion. Relisting is a waste of everyone's time and merely enoourages further stalling tactics on behalf of those inclined in future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but that seems more like your personal opinion than a certain fact. A waste of time is hardly the way to describe this upcoming AFD, as the result of the AFD contested here was in no way a certain Delete more so a No Consensus if anything.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Giving it a little more thought, I'm prepared to accept that arguments can be made in good faith for why the sentencing, if not the person, is notable enough to have an event on, and so relisting would at least allow for those arguments to be made. Not that this is in any way an endorsement of BabbaQ's own opinions as to the article's notability nor consensus in general. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Hufnagel (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Deleted as WP:CSD#A7.
In my opinion, the claim in the article that the topic is famous for being part of three notable bands is typically seen as enough to show notability per WP:NMUSIC#C6, and certainly enough to indicate significance and pass A7.
Deleting admin declined restoring the article as it was.
Amalthea 12:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion A7 says that the question of whether a person is "important or significant" (assertion of which bars speedy deletion) "is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability". Here there was a credible claim to importance and significance (" He is most famous for fronting the progressive metal band Dysrhythmia, and for being a member in the latest reunion of Gorguts" - both Dysrhythmia and Gorguts have articles, incidentally), and although the article needed work and more references it did not merit speedy deletion. The only slight pause is that the creator of the article Kingofthosewhoknow (talk · contribs) was blocked the following day, with questions to be directed to Arbcom, and so there might be more to this than meets the eye. Bencherlite^Talk 12:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn A7. Deleting admin's talk page response contradicts A7, and article includes clear assertion of notability, not merely significance. Judging by the article creator's edit history, the article creator's block would appear to have no relationship to this article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - What is not mentioned above is that I did try to have a dialogue with the creator of the article before he was banned, in order to get him to improve the article. But I don't respond to harassment, and I've already said I don't have a problem with the article being recreated. Deb (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn A7 did not and does not apply.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• List at AfD. Contested CSD#A7s should be undeleted and listed at AfD immediately on a reasonable request. The discussion is needed for somebody to learn something. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• On looking harder: Straight Overturn. "He is most famous for fronting the progressive metal band Dysrhythmia, and for being a member in the latest reunion of Gorguts." (from google cache) is explanation of the subject's significance, and so it beats the wording of WP:CSDS#A7. This was an overzealous speedy. Optionally List at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Err. I'm a little less certain about this than others seem to be. On the one hand I can understand the "overturn" recommendations above, because Deletion Review interprets the Criteria for Speedy Deletion rather narrowly and will almost always overturn a case that isn't clear-cut. But on the other hand I wouldn't want to censure Deb for deleting what seems to have been an inadequately-sourced BLP written by a blocked user. I'm minded to prefer allow recreation (which is what Deb's already said).—S Marshall T/C 22:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a censure. We're constantly told that admins aren't perfect. And it's no big deal because when they make mistakes they can be reversed. That's all overturn means. That the admin made a mistake that is being corrected. There's no punishment. There's not even some sort of demerit attached.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn speedy deletion. If the article contained an assertion of its subject's significance/importance, it was ineligible for WP:CSD#A7. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• In light of WP:NMUSIC#C6 there's at least enough of an assertion of notability that this isn't A7 material, though an AfD might find that there's a rather circular notability argument regarding the bands and biographies here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]