Copying the comment I left on the closing admin's talk page:
I disagree with your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buck Saunders. So, there were three "keep"s and five "redirect"s. 3/5 of the redirect votes were just "per [other user]," and so those should not be given a ton of weight; one (Therapyisgood) was among a spree of "redirect" votes made seconds apart. The comments by keep voters were well-reasoned and were saying that the coverage is sufficient for GNG; the main arguments against were that because the SIGCOV sources didn't discuss a certain point of his life, they should not count, which is completely non-policy based; and that because they are obituaries and/or local coverage, they are not SIGCOV, which is also non-policy based. Additionally, nobody had any kind of argument against my NBIO point: that the other sources could be combined to provide an additional piece of SIGCOV if the others were not enough ("If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"). So, "redirect" was not the correct closure.
Endorse close. Redirect was the correct close, as a reasonable alternative to deletion. Playing one game in the NFL (the totality of the subject's pro career was just that, one game) is no longer a grounds for presumptive notability. The "Keep" argument was weak and based principally on two local obituary write-ups that focused on his untimely death while testifying as a county agricultural agent on the subject of squirrel poisons. Tellingly, neither of those local obits even mentioned his one-game pro football "career". IMO (at the AfD and now), two local obits about a county agricultural agent are not enough to pass GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Firstly, the DRV statement that no editor refuted a WP:NBIO intrepretation is inaccurate. If the filer presented more sources, then IMO their vote could hold more weight. But the full paragraph of WP:NBIO states that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Both redirect and keep sides reasonably analysed the sources and drew different conclusions. Moreover, some redirect votes indeed were per other user or per above, but the last keep vote was similar in being a per other user vote: only adding Just because some sources don't mention his football career doesn't mean they don't count towards GNG. And while I might expect more for a recent subject, we know that most sources that were available 100 years ago are no longer available, and notability isn't temporary, so I am willing to accept BeanieFan's sources as adequate which presumes more sources and is not significantly more policy-based compared to some of the redirect votes. I'll also note that there was not a spree of "redirect" votes made seconds apart, three consecutive redirect votes were written at 04:23, 23 November 2022, 13:41, 23 November 2022, and 21:54, 23 November 2022, so I'm unsure how commenting eight hours apart could be considered as a spree... seconds apart- is it suggested that the redirect voters didn't complete a thorough WP:BEFORE? Moreover, many redirect voters who initially commented briefly, e..g., SPF12118 and GPL93, went into more detail, so I disagree that they were weak and should hold less weight compared to the keep side. Therefore, as numerically the redirect/delete to keep is 6 to 3 and IMO redirect and keep are equally strong, I endorse the close. VickKiang(talk)00:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the close as Redirect, as a correct conclusion by the closer. I would have !voted to Keep, but, as is sometimes noted, DRV is not AFD Round 2. (I would have been in the minority if I had taken part in the AFD, and that sometimes happens.) The closer correctly assessed the rough consensus of the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (argued for keep). I cannot fault the closer here, although a relist or a no consensus close would also be appropriate. The arguments for a redirect were strong and so were the arguments to keep the article. Where the participants differed was whether subjects who participate in a top-tier professional support should be afforded a bit of leeway in determining whether GNG is met ( a) real life notability plays a role in whether a subject should have an article in the first instance and b) sports databases still have value, even if they do not count towards notability). --Enos733 (talk) 05:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse I think resisting would have been most appropriate since there are valid arguments on both sides and there was not a strong numerical advantage to the redirect votes. However a redirect close was a reasonable option as the sources presented by the “keep” side are borderline-GNG at best. FrankAnchor16:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the redirect closure. This seems like a reasonable alternative to deletion, as all the information is archived, so if notability can be established, a refund wouldn’t be necessary. I was a little troubled by the “3/5 redirect votes shouldn’t be given much weight” comment, as it’s more than reasonable to simply agree with other users’ rationale without repeating the information, but I’m sure nothing malicious was meant by it. This case seems like a redirect was a reasonable result. SPF121188(talk this way)(my edits)22:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, not that another endorsement is likely needed at this point. The close gave appropriate weight to the arguments in the discussion based on their basis in policy and precedent. Thparkth (talk)22:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, the closer assessed the strength of the arguments and concluded the keep !votes were deficient in P&G-based reasoning on top of being in the minority. I'll note the (lack of) sourcing here is rather reminiscent of the first NFL one-gamer successfully deleted, who also had a local obit that failed to mention the subject's football career. JoelleJay (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
