User:Materialscientist speedy deleted the article with comment: 'G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion'. The page was not recreated by me, it was moved to mainspace from the Draft:Isak Hansen-Aarøen with multiple reliable sources proving the subject meets WP:GNG. Since the last nomination the article was expanded and more reliable sources were added. You could see them on the page itself and on the discussion page. As User:RoySmith stated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 August 11: 'There is some feeling that the AfD didn't do a good job of analyzing sources, but there's a pretty good consensus here that the close was correct. If somebody wants to take another shot at writing a better article (i.e. with sources that clearly address the issues raised at AfD), I'm willing to restore the old content to draft space'. I did exactly that and independent reviewer restored the article. Now I don't even have the access to the draft... -- Corwin of Amber (talk) 07:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You'd better also invite PeeJay (talk·contribs) who actually nominated the target for CSD on 5 July 2021, with a summary "article was previously deleted and nothing has changed about his situation to justify recreation". I did and do agree with that evaluation - while the referencing of the target has been improved, the notability did not change, in both senses (WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY). You do agree that Hansen-Aarøen does not pass NFOOTY, but claim that he passes GNG. I disagree, because his GNG entirely hinges on NFOOTY, and all references on that merely echo a few routine facts from his junior career, with nothing coming out at the senior level yet. Materialscientist (talk) 09:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Materialscientist: His GNG does absolutely not hinge on NFOOTY, thats not how this works. Passing WP:NFOOTY mearly means that the subject is likely to have the significant coverage to pass the WP:GNG. Passing it does not mean the subject is automatically notable, he still has to pass WP:GNG. And failing does absolutely not mean that the subject is non-notable as he just has to pass WP:GNG. All of this is clearly stated in the FAQ at the top of WP:NSPORT wich WP:NFOOTY is part of.
Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline? A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions. For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. (For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics.)
Q3: If a sports figure does not meet the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards? A3: No, it does not mean this—if the subject meets the general notability guideline, then he/she meets Wikipedia's standards for having an article in Wikipedia, even if he/she does not meet the criteria for the appropriate sports-specific notability guideline. The sports-specific notability guidelines are not intended to set a higher bar for inclusion in Wikipedia: they are meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist.)
And his article passed WP:GNG in its latest form as it had significant coverage in several reliable national sources. None of those sources where in the article when it was originally deleted and there was no apparent attemt to look for sources by the nominator, as should have been done per WP:BEFORE, or by any of the !voters. Alvaldi (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First, focus on this article, and not on editors or on other articles. Second, don't twist the notability - of course, anyone can have additional notability to their professional achievements (a mediocre footballer can be a hot model, a notable actor, etc., etc.), but this is not the case - all his "general notability" is merely an echo of his few junior football facts - multiple minor sources repeating the same fact, there are no additional notability facts in them. Third, the number of refs in deleted article does not matter when the notability has not changed. Fourth, much of refs are either from Norwegian sources or their echoes, i.e., he is notable for Norwegian wiki, but not for this wiki. Materialscientist (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Materialscientist: "Fourth, much of refs are either from Norwegian sources or their echoes, i.e., he is notable for Norwegian wiki, but not for this wiki." Once again, this is not how this works. There is nothing on Wikipedia that states that sources have to be english, it is quite literally the opposite per WP:BIAS. Sources from major Norwegian publications are more than enough to establish notability. His age does not matter regarding his notability, his lack of professional appearances do not matter regarding his notability. His notability only hinges on that major publications take note of him and write significant articles on him, which they have done for several years. And deleting this as G4 was wrong as It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content that has been moved to user space or converted to a draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy). The article had been recreated with reliable sources that showed that the subject had significant coverage in major national publications and its draft submission was approved on those grounds. Alvaldi (talk) 10:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We clearly disagree on his GNG, hence this discussion, but there is no point repeating this over and over. G4 was entirely justified, if we accept that his GNG/NFOOTY did not change, and they did not change, as he didn't evolve much since 2020, only the number of references had increased. Materialscientist (talk) 10:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Materialscientist: The G4 was unjustified as the original AFD was only based on the subject not passing WP:NFOOTY with no attempts to see if he passed WP:GNG. The second article had multiple sources that showed the subject had significant coverage in reliable major sources over several years, none of who where in the original article, and it was approved through draft submission on the grounds that it passed WP:GNG. That fact alone disqualifies from G4. If there were doubts of the subject failing WP:GNG then it should've been taken to Afd. Alvaldi (talk) 10:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is your subjective opinion. It's not true that 'multiple minor sources repeating the same fact'. As for Norwegian sources, are you trying to say that there is a bias against reliable sources not written in English? I checked WP:RS and didn't find any mention that the sources must be only in English. Also per WP:GNG 'Sources do not have to be available online or written in English'. For the other people interested in this discussion who don't have access to the deleted article you may check some of the sources: --Corwin of Amber (talk) 10:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Fourth, much of refs are either from Norwegian sources or their echoes, i.e., he is notable for Norwegian wiki, but not for this wiki."
Uuuuh...how are you an established editor, @Materialscientist:? Because this is such an egregiously wrong statement about how notability works that I question your entire understanding and even opinion on notability for any article on Wikipedia. Would you say the same thing if the only sources available for a subject were US news sources? We all know that the answer is no. The country of origin of news sources is irrelevant to the subject of determining notability, the WP:GNG even specifically states that. It even emphasizes and italicizes the "not" in the line "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English", which I now see seemingly had to be done to deal with asinine claims like yours. SilverserenC20:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alvaldi, one question I have concerning your statement is how are we, not being Norwegian, to determine what is considered a reliable source in Norway or not? We can't even halfway agree on what is a reliable source in English. Just because it is a major publication, Norwegian or otherwise, does not mean it is reliable. We have major publications in the US that are not the least bit reliable (See WP:RSP). This is why I find it difficult to criticize someone's interpretation too much. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the G4, only providing a different perspective. I agree that non-English sources are more heavily scrutinized and may even be discriminated against on the English 'pedia. What is the solution though? Simply accepting it because it may be a major publication wont work, even on English articles. --ARoseWolf15:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ARoseWolf: Fair question. For the record, I'm not Norwegian but I know of most of these publications through my own country's media as it is not uncommon for them to be quoted there. I don't think the solution should be to consider them non-reliable unless proven otherwise, rather the opposite. If there are any doubts on their credibility then information about them is fairly accessable online. This article covers the norwegian media, goes over which are the most popular one and most trusted (And the most trusted one, the NRK, has several articles on Hansen-Aarøen [1][2][3][4]) Alvaldi (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alvaldi, I think that is a very informational article on Norwegian media but it doesn't rise to the level of consensus on Wikipedia which is how almost everything is done here. The New York Times is not considered reliable because it is popular in the US or has a large audience. It is reliable because consensus among editors here at some point in a discussion or built over time in decisions has determined that to be the case. The same would need to be true for any media. --ARoseWolf13:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the recreated version had significantly more sources than the AfDed version and they included newspaper articles primarily about the subject. Admittedly most of them are in Norwegian but that's acceptable (see WP:NONENG). I'm not sure it will pass a new AfD as the subject still doesn't clear the threshold of WP:NFOOTY, which is one of the most absurdly generous notability guidelines out there. Hut 8.511:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to Materialscientist, notability isn't local. If there are reliable sources about him in one of the Norwegian languages, then those are usable on en.wiki: in other words, if he's notable in Norway then he's notable everywhere. I agree with Hut8.5 that NFOOTY is crazy inclusionist but as I understand it the case being made here is that he passes the GNG and not NFOOTY. It's not possible to judge that without seeing the sources and the article hasn't been tempundeleted.—S MarshallT/C12:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the recreated version was vastly improved over the original AfDed version with multiple sources that showed the subject had significant coverage in reliable major Norwegian sources over several years, none of which were included in the original AfDed version. The original AfD was only based on the subject not passing WP:NFOOTY with no apparent attempts to see if he passed WP:GNG. The recreated version was approved through draft submission on the grounds that it passed WP:GNG. If there were doubts of the subject failing WP:GNG then it should've been taken to AfD. On a further note, despite the common misconceptions of the contrary, WP:NFOOTY does not supersede WP:GNG as is clearly stated in WP:NSPORT, which WP:NFOOTY is part of. Alvaldi (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy list at AfD. A disputed G4 should not have to grid through weeks at DRV. More than enough has been provided to demonstrate that there is something to discuss, and CSDs are for when there is nothing to discuss. Do not send to draft, because draftspace is optional and someone wants it in mainspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4, list at AfD. I was pinged here as the closer of the previous DRV. G4 talks about "sufficiently identical copies" and "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". It's marginal, but I think there were sufficient changes to disqualify G4, and we should be conservative in applying CSD. I do, however, disagree with SmokeyJoe that User:TheWikiholic approved the draft. This should G4-proof it. The AfC instructions say, Rejection is appropriate when you genuinely believe the page ... clearly meet(s) a CSD article criterion). It's circular reasoning (an incorrect usage of Contraposition?) to say that if it was accepted, then it doesn't meet CSD. -- RoySmith(talk)15:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:RoySmith, no contraposition. I guess that you do not understand the AfC review process and options. The process involves the reviewer being vetted as a reviewer, and the draft review process involves previous deletions being flagged. The option are then: (1) Reject as it would be deleted if in mainspace; (2) Decline, as the reviewer considers it possibly fixable or improvable but is below standard as it stands; (3) Do nothing and go to the next; (4) accept and mainspace, as it looks good and would probably pass AfD. There is a huge gulf between "Reject" and "Accept".
In accepting the draft, despite a previous deletion, the AfC reviewer has added their name in saying the reasons for deletion are overcome. If they are wrong, that is reason for a discussion. A good start could be the reviewer's talk page. The formal place to discuss is AfD. Just doing a G4 speedy deletion is just rude to the reviewer. AfC approval should G4-proof the newly mainspaced article, as the review has obviously disagreed with G4 applying. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4, list at AfD. To be honest, I do not remember the state of the article now as it was reviewed a few weeks ago. I reckon it might be well-sourced, and I'm in favor of either overturning G4 and list at AfD, or restore as the draft. Regards.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4, List at AFD - In my opinion, reviewing admins should be very cautious in applying G4 to subjects, whether living persons or companies, that may have been too soon or might be thought to be up and coming. Such subjects should be given second chances, even not long after a previous deletion, a second chance meaning another moment in article space for a possible second AFD. This article is an example of when a second AFD is in order rather than a G4. If there is doubt as to whether to give a second chance, that is reason enough to give a second chance, because CSD should be clear. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4 unless the key part of the nomination statement ("Since the last nomination the article was expanded and more reliable sources were added. You could see them on the page itself and on the discussion page.") is patently and obviously false. G4 is not for when the situation hasn't substantially changed, G4 is for when the article hasn't substantially changed. This should be done immediately, per WP:SNOW. Jclemens (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy While I can't see the old article, there are sources here since the last AfD. So send to AfD if you want it deleted. Seems unlikely to make it at AfD however. Hobit (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Vivek Verma – No consensus. Although this discussion is in principle open to examining a new and improved article about this subject, two people would unsalt the page for this purpose, while one person would refer the appellant to WP:AFC. As such, lacking a consensus to unsalt the page, AfC is probably the only way open to the appellant at the moment. Sandstein 09:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Before afd the subject had a couple of reliable sources like This on The Hindu and this The Diplomat but now it has more new Reliable sources which I feel Makes it pass GNG, Although a consensus on it may clear things in more better way, I am providing the new refs along with other sources which I feel makes him suitable to get that page restored so that it can be reconstructed as per new references.
Comment – The AfD closing statement said that "[i]f a new version of this article is to be written once new and better sources can be found, it should go through the AfC process." That still seems prudent: writing up a draft with these new sources and submitting it for review by an experienced editor is a good solution that ensures the draft is up to snuff. I'm not sure there's really anything else for us to do here. (You can consult an archived copy of the old version here if that would be helpful to you.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extraordinary Writ Thanks now the question arises is this that are these all refs makes him notable enough to have a stand alone article as cuz the article draft have been declined stating it fails GNG, How come that be possible for someone who seem to be notable but is declined stating that it is not even close to notability? Regards Suryabeej⋠talk⋡07:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also as per DRV if new refs arises the undeletion can be done, so Having a better consensus on it might add some spotlight to the situationSuryabeej⋠talk⋡07:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SuryaBeej, has anyone offered you any money to get this article restored to mainspace? There is a long history of UPE associated with this article.—S MarshallT/C07:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall Hello, I am quite aware about WMF policies and as per that I am not being compensated in any way also I am not connected to the subject in any way, I am willingly questioning the deletion on my own because I looking at all the chaos this article has in past and all the refs since last AFD I feel it DOES passes the Notability criteria if not Notability Wikipedia:Bare notability for sure, I am just willing to work on it looking all the refs available Thanks Suryabeej⋠talk⋡08:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All right. I'm going to go ahead and say that we should allow a fresh version of this article, based on the new sources, to be created. I say this because I think it's right to give a lot of extra weight to The Hindu as a source.Wikipedia dislikes most Indian sources. We think that India's highest-circulation English-language newspaper, The Times of India, is unreliable. We're content to accept The Hindu, which is the second-highest, and the Indian Express, but there are no other Indian-nationality sources that Wikipedians judge as "generally reliable" -- but we like a far higher proportion of American and British sources. And the consequence of that, is that we judge American topics by the words of Americans, British topics by the words of Brits, but we don't judge Indian topics by the words of Indians. It's a massive systemic bias issue.I'm not content to allow unreliable sources, so the only way I can think of to counter systemic bias is to give extra weight to the few Indian-nationality sources that we are willing to accept. And hence, I contend that we should view coverage in The Hindu as strongly indicative of notability.—S MarshallT/C12:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I knew that I had seen this title before. This is a poorly written request about a salted title which has a long history of promotion and sockpuppetry. However, a reasonable request is to unsalt the title, knowing that there will be another AFD.
There have been the following deletion proceedings:
UNSALT to allow creation in article space and a new AFD. If the result of the AFD is another Delete, it should be salted again, and common sense should be used as to when another article creation and AFD can be allowed.
Comment - See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vivek.k.Verma/Archive. There is a long history, seen in this SPI, of creation of other now-salted forms of the name, including Vivek (playback singer) and Vivek Verma Singer. If the article is deleted after this AFD, it should be again ECP-salted, and VivekVivek Verma should be added to the Title Blacklist. If the article is kept after re-creation and this AFD, it should be ECP-protected to prevent the insertion of puffery by sockpuppets. If the article is deleted and salted, it will be largely because Vivek Verma is their own worst enemy in Wikipedia. If the article is kept and protected, it will be in spite of Vivek Verma being their own worst enemy in Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
