Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 11

Yulia Putintseva (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page has been unfairly deleted as this player satisfies the 3rd criteria of tennis players notability (she played here: 2010 BGL Luxembourg Open – Singles which is the main draw of a WTA tournament) Vinz57 (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn There was no consensus to delete the page, so it should've been No consensus. Armbrust and Mayumashu vote shouldn't be counted either because the subject did pass WP:TENNIS/N. I've seen Cirt closed AfDs as Delete that should've been No consensus so many times without giving concrete rationale for deletion. I've seen enough and think it is time for someone to warn him. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 00:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- It doesn't look like a terrible reading of consensus to me. Remember that WP:TENNIS/N is just a guideline and not policy. It is not binding. The community can decide not to follow the guideline's advice, and this seems to be what has happened here. Reyk _YO! 01:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist The closing admin failed to give a reason for closing a debate where the consensus was far from obvious on its face. Of course, if a disaffected AfD participant seeks better reasoning from a closing admin, the closing admin should be asked on his or her talk page before coming here. Vinz57 properly did just that, but was unforutnately told by another editor to come to DRV rather than await Cirt's reply. Cirt might have been able to give an explanation that satisfied Vinz57, or changed the close in light of Vinz57's points. But unfortunately, here we are. The nomination, as well as the first two delete !votes, were based on a premise that was shown by Arteyu to be incorrect. There is nothing in the closing statement from which we can discern whether that was taken into account. Travelbird's delete !vote, on the other hand, was entirely valid and well argued. I would have agreed, but on its own the !vote was not enough to establish a consensus to delete (especially as it was arguing to bypass a guideline). As an aside, it's curious that no-one discussed the GNG in this debate. There's a surprising amount of news coverage but it would be good to have a discussion as to whether any of it is significant enough to found a proper article. All the more reason to relist, in my view. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Ambivalent; Allow recreation I could support this going to no consensus, but at the same time the debate had been relisted once. Cirt doesn't leave deletion summaries as often as he could, or should, and had Cirt done so in this case, this one could (and probably should) have been handled without needing a DRV. I notice that there was no reference to the GNG in the discussion, which indicates a poverty of argument on all sides. Finally, the subject is a minor, and there are those who believe that non-notable minors should not have articles. At this point, I would like to see an article, if one is to be placed back into mainspace, which clearly indicates how the subject meets the GNG, with references, and not just some obscure sub-SNG (ATHLETE not good enough for tennis players for some reason?). I would recommend userification and work, and Cirt is usually good about restoring fixable articles like this. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus - A deletion debate exclusively on whether each AfD participating Wikipedia personally thought the tennis player was important to them rather than an AfD applying policy to determine whether reliable sources thought the tennis player was important enought to write about. Nice. Just nice. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I undid my prior AFD close. I restored the page. I relisted the AFD for another potential seven days of discussion. The AFD discussion is ongoing, again, here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yulia Putintseva. This DRV can now be closed, with discussion arguing for notability or lack thereof, continuing at the AFD page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Oliver (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe now that Oliver meets the notability guidelines for college athletes because:

• He has received media attention in the San Jose Mercury News ("San Jose State basketball: Adrian Oliver can deliver stats, but can he produce wins?") and Metro Silicon Valley ("SJSU Star Adrian Oliver", originally published as "Sharp Shooter" in Metro vol. 26, issue 35, November 10-November 16, 2010, page 77), and The Register-Guard in Eugene, Oregon ("Ducks will take their shot at stopping WAC’s top gun today").
• In the 2009-2010 season, Oliver was tied for 5th among the top 10 scorers in NCAA Division I college basketball. He was also the lead scorer in the Western Athletic Conference (source: SJSU biography).
• In 2010, he was WAC preseason Player of the Year (ibid.) Andrewlp1991 (talk) 07:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel the subject meets notability requirements you're free to recreate the article, so you know, so long as you assert notability with some verifiable sources you should be immune to a speedy due to recreation (the article has to be substantially similar). Just a procedural comment, no opinion on the DRV itself, looks like it might be notable but it's not really my field of expertise (or competence for that matter). 65.29.47.55 (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More sources: San Francisco Chronicle articles "What Spartans ask, get from Oliver: more", "Adrian Oliver thinks, therefore he scores"; Seattle Times interview "An interview with ex-Husky Adrian Oliver", article "Adrian Oliver gets one more game at Hec Ed", "Oliver leaves Washington to play closer to his home".

• Allow recreation the sources here are clearly enough to meet the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 06:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation - Right on! Finally, someone gets it and cites sources. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry D'Amigo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I was not there for the discussion and was not there to point out a major fact that everyone missed. Everyone pointed out the fact he failed Notability under Ice Hockey players, but in fact he does not fail under " 4. Achieved preeminent honours..." He has been on the All Rookie team and as won the Rookie of the Year at the NCAA Division one level. This is more than enough as John Tavares, and Steven Stamkos had articles when they played in the OHL and they had Rookie of the Year awards not surprising as this is under 4 and the College hockey gets the same precedence as the OHL. No one pointed this out and I'm pretty sure I put it on the article too. He also satisfies general requirement of third party sources, which you find easily when you google him.Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 05:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It would have been better if you asked the closing admin first to simply reconsider, as your argument does have merit; all I see on his talk page is your notice that you filed here. I really don't see this person meeting the general notability threshold, as the coverage is routine "he signed here, he got send down there...", etc...type. So it'd hinge on if being Rookie of the Year of ECAC Hockey is deemed sufficient for #4 of WP:NHOCKEY. Tarc (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well there was nothing I could do about the close. It was clear that the consensus was close, but everyone seemed to miss a few facts that could sway them, so asking the admin to recreate it wouldn't be the right thing to do. Plus you can get good third party like [1], [2] and these two that were on the article and used to write it [3], [4].--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Article temporarily undeleted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment from closing admin. The AFD as read couldn't have been closed any other way but I'm finding some gnews hits such as this and this so a case for GNG would not be unreasonable. I wouldn't be opposed to another AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Good close. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The conversion isn't about if it was a good close as it was because the consensus was delete, but rather it's about should it be discussed again due to facts that were not present then.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• relist a good close, but new facts mean we should probably have a new discussion. Hobit (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• relist per Hobit. New information should be considered. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• undelete or relist no fault to the closing admin. Based on that AFD discussion delete was more than reasonable. However with the new sources available it looks very reasonable that it meets GNG. Since it's temp undeleted already I'd say unblank it and add the new sources. If no one objects, call it an allowed recreation, if someone does object, call it a relist and have a new AFD.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Article unblanked. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close, as the admin deleted based on consensus, but endorse recreation (without relist) based on the two sources that establish notability. Resolute 15:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close: Not only was the AfD closed properly, but I disagree with the nom's premise. I really rather regret now the "preeminent honors" clause I penned when I drafted the NHOCKEY criteria, Our expectation at the time was that people would understand in a criterion that lists "all-time top ten leading scorer," "First Team All-Star" and "All-American," preeminent honors would mean just that: preeminent. Between that and the "major award" clause that newer editors claim to mean includes every honor a league issues down to Rookie of the Month awards, the original intent of the criteria is being bypassed by them.  Ravenswing  17:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He won Rookie of the year not month. Secondly, every player in the OHL that won the Rookie of the Year has an article and there's a big consensus that these articles are notable and the OHL gets the same precedence as the NCAA so the fact that you say that Rookie of the Year is not a big enough award, so I urge you to go to Matt Puempel (he's the same position and only qualifies because he won the OHL ROY) and afd it. You'll find easily that the consensus will be keep. Also, Taylor Hall, Patrick Kane, John Tavares (ice hockey) all had articles when the only notability they had was winning the OHL ROY. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a "big consensus" that those articles are notable? Would you care to point out where that consensus is, please? As far as that goes, however, NOT every OHL Rookie of the Year has an article. Five do not, and the factor which separate them from the 32 who do is that the 32 all have played in the NHL, that being an automatic pass on NHOCKEY's criteria for playing in a top professional league. Other than those five, the only exception since the inception of the award is Puempel, which I've prodded - thanks for pointing that one out!  Ravenswing  02:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to afd as I said don't prod it I'm pretty sure you aren't that confident that it'll make it so you prod it. The people who don't have articles are from 1990 and below which is before the internet was made and there isn't enough for any of them to make an article about them. That's why they aren't articles. Don't ignore that. You continue to ignore that Taylor Hall, Patrick Kane, John Tavares (ice hockey) 'all were in the same position as Puempel and they had articles when they had ONLY ROY. You would also be the FIRST person to put an OHL ROY under afd that has an article, since no one has done it before. That's the consensus I'm talking about. The fact NO ONE has even thought about afding him except for you who is only doing to try to make a point which isn't a good thing to do on wikipedia.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To add here are Taylor Hall, Patrick Kane, John Tavares (ice hockey) articles, respectively, that show that they had articles with only notability being ROY [5], [6], [7].--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well ... let's take it from the top. (1) If you claim that a ROY is presumptively notable, he is presumptively notable no matter the year of the selection. Oddly enough, reliable sources existed before the Internet; we called them "newspapers," "magazines" and "books." (2) You persist in conflating failure to agree with you with "ignoring" or not understanding you. (3) That being said, your logic has several holes. The first is to assume that the articles to which you refer relied on the NHOCKEY criteria for survival ... criteria, however, which were not at all official before this past year, well after those articles were created. Since you've only made a handful of hockey-related edits, you can certainly be forgiven for being unaware that before the changes to WP:ATHLETE, the hockey Wikiproject viewed the NHOCKEY criteria as having little to no force when it came to AfD. (4) So, in fact, you have never sought a consensus on the subject? Fair enough; that's all I need to know.  Ravenswing  08:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are now trying to make this personal. I urge you to not do that. I didn't say you were ignoring me; I said you are ignoring the fact that the three players I mentioned had articles with the only notable this being ROY. So, tell me why they deserve it and a NCAA ROY doesn't. I'm still waiting the answer from you and please you know just as well as I that newspapers and magazines from 20 years ago are hard to get and also they aren't much books about OHL and junior players written it wasn't until the internet that these became widely available about junior players. On more thing, wikipedia guildlines has precedence over any Wikiproject guildlines so it doesn't matter if Wikiproject Hockey doesn't agree with them. They must first try to change the guildlines. Here's an edit from 2007 that says major awards at the OHL, QMJHL, and NCAA are notable. [8]--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that players who played in the world championships (like D'Amigo) were notable.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to get, Everyone? Do you not have libraries in your area? That being said, you're not getting it. When I said that before the guidelines were made official, Wikiproject editors gave them little credence at AfD? That was because they were unofficial project guidelines with no authority or force. Beyond the GNG, WP:ATHLETE was the sole official guideline in force for all sports, and NHOCKEY was just our opinion as to who should be notable or not.

Moving on, I honestly shouldn't have to spell this out, and I dislike dragging this out, but plainly you need to hear it: the three articles you are harping on were created before NHOCKEY became an official guideline. All three articles qualify for reasons having nothing to do with ROY awards; being first round draft choices and playing in the NHL. We have been AfDing all manner of articles that either passed the earlier version of ATHLETE or for which consensus would not have been achieved before individual sports guidelines were devolved to the projects, and "why didn't you AfD this three years ago, huh? Huh? Huh?" catcalls are unwarranted and inappropriate - there are many invalid articles which fail notability guidelines on Wikipedia, and it shouldn't need to be explained to you that no editor, however industrious, follows New Pages 24-7.  Ravenswing  19:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those 3 players where NOT drafted nor where they in the NHL. They had articles when they were only rookies in the OHL and it was in 2007. Also, you have accused me of being uncivil, but you have been condescending to me in almost EVERY reply to me. I have asked you to stop making this personal yet you continue. I would also like to point out that DJ explained the guideline clearly without being condescending and it took him one post I would hope that it would make you see that being condescending is the way to go--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion per the excellent points raised by User:Ravenswing. Eusebeus (talk) 12:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion as the outcome in the discussion was clear at the time. But have no issue with a relist. -DJSasso (talk) 13:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist I think the sources and NHockey claim brought up here merit a new discussion at AFD. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]