Unaloto Feao – Relist. Pretty clear consensus that the "keep" close was not correct; instead folks prefer either an overturn to "no consensus" (someone to "delete") or a relist. Going by the latter mostly because of the headcount, arguments are otherwise pretty evenly balanced in strength. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Relist. The keep !voters had neither a numerical majority nor any policy/guideline-based arguments at all, so I don't understand how the closer could have found a consensus to keep. Another week of discussion in the hope of attracting some additional participation would probably be the best idea. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The deletes certainly could have been better explaining a bit more about why the existing sources are deficient or at least asserting they'd tried to find more sources. The keeps cite no "authority" for why their assertion that fact X rise to the level of notability and one contains a personal attack on the nominator. I really can't see how this rises to the level of keep. It seems either no-consensus or delete would be viable outcomes (I can't see how relisting would help). I don't see the point in overturning to no-consensus, so I'd just give it a few months and renominate. ----81.100.164.154 (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. The keep arguments are wholly rejected by our guidelines and should have been discarded. Relisting will allow others (e.g., me) to weigh in. JoelleJay (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would have closed as no consensus, but am OK with relisting. The keep !voters did not cite NFOOTBALL, so I don't know why that has been dragged in. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse 2-2 in a Nom-D-K-K order, with a full relist yielding only the final keep, shows a clear consensus trajectory. A relist or no consensus were both within discretion and I would have preferred them, but a keep is not unreasonable given this vote pattern. Jclemens (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus or relist. No consensus would have been a better reflection of that XfD as none of the !voters provided any evidence for their assertions. The two keep comments assert that the delete comments are incorrect and nobody attempted to refute them. If the claims are verifiable (Tonga national football team#Player records makes the same claims, with a source, but that source appears to be showing something different now to what it did on the implied 2019 access date) then those advocating deletion should explain why they feel they are not sufficient for a stand-alone article and why the content shouldn't be merged somewhere and the title redirected. If they are not verifiable then that should have been pointed out. It seems unlikely that a nation's most successful player of the world's most popular sport has no significant coverage in any language, and there are lots of google hits so the delete !votes need more substance - e.g. are all the hits just stats? not independent? not reliable? rather than just a vague wave towards policies. The keep !votes didn't cite any policies or guidelines either (contrary to the nomination here) so they aren't strong either. So we have an equal number of equally weak keep and delete votes, I don't see how this can be anything other than no consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 01:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. Per WP:LOCALCON, consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. The result here does that; it overrides the consensus that football players are automatically notable, and that all sports articles require at least one example of WP:SIGCOV. As such, the arguments for keeping should have been dismissed, and the article instead deleted. BilledMammal (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What consensus? Two people said "X" without evidence, two people then said "not X" also without evidence. There was no consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, nominations for deletion are not fire and forget. Had anyone advocating deletion responded to the keep votes explaining why they don't think they were sufficient then it would be different but they didn't. If those advocating keep knew something more was expected of them then they would have had an opportunity to provide that. Also, consensus doesn't default to the other site - consensus discussions default to no consensus in the absence of a clear consensus either way, no consensus normally defaults to the status quo. In this case there was no consensus to either keep or delete, and no reason for no consensus to default to anything other than the status quo. Thryduulf (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The delete side said the topic fails GNG, and the keep side did not argue the topic meets GNG, therefore the conclusion is that the topic fails GNG. Avilich (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The keep side implicitly argued that the topic met the GNG, even if they didn't say so specifically. Nobody even attempted to refute the assertions of the keep voters, no detail was provided of the assertions that it didn't meet the GNG so we have no way of knowing how much (if any) was put in to verify those assertions. So what we have is two sets of unproven assertions = no consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, so on the one hand you're claiming that arguments identical to those made when appealing to NFOOTY aren't explicitly invoking the deprecated guideline (and therefore...don't count as invalid?), and then on the other are assigning an implicit GNG-based rationale to those same editors??? JoelleJay (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we have to look at the arguments presented in the discussion. The nomination cited the GNG. At the broadest level there are only two valid reasons to vote !keep in an AfD:
You believe the rationale given by the nominator is incorrect in some way, either generally or in relation to the article being considered.
Something has changed since the nomination such that it no longer applies.
If you believe the nominator is correct you !vote delete, redirect or merge. If you believe the nominator was incorrect but the article should not be kept for a different reason you !vote something other than "keep".
In the absence of any indication to the contrary it is reasonable to assume that someone voting !keep is doing so for reason 1, especially if there have been no significant changes to the article (as was the case for this article). So when the nomination cites failing to meet the GNG as the reason for deletion, a !vote to keep cannot logically mean anything other than "I believe the nominator is wrong and this article does meet the GNG" unless there is some statement to the contrary (which there clearly was not in this situation). When a policy or guideline is not mentioned in a discussion you cannot infer anything about how participants feel it relates to this discussion - nobody mentioned WP:V or WP:RS so we have no idea whether anybody thought they were relevant. Nobody mentioned NFOOTY so we have no idea whether anyone thought they were relevant, we don't even know whether all the participants were even aware that it existed, or if they did that it has been partially deprecated. The closer can only close based on what is present in the discussion, anything else is a supervote. Thryduulf (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't say that the topic meets GNG, and even if they meant it, they should have been ignored because they gave no evidence that the topic meets GNG, or other consensus-approved guideline. What they did cite is the former NFOOTY guideline (without mentioning it by name); obviously they thought the criteria were relevant. Avilich (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They disagreed with the nominator, who said it didn't meet the GNG. The only way you can disagree with a nominator who says it doesn't meet the GNG is by believing it meets the GNG. They didn't give any evidence of this, but those advocating for deletion didn't give anything more than a vague wave towards there being no coverage without providing any detail and without responding to the assertions made by those arguing for keep. We can presume those voting keep thought their assertions were relevant, but we cannot assume those assertions were in any way related to a guideline we have no evidence they even knew existed. Over a week after the assertion was made nobody had mentioned anything about it not being relevant so it's reasonable to assume that nobody did think it was irrelevant, because if you think someone's rationale in a deletion discussion is irrelevant it's reasonable to assume you will say something. Neither set of arguments were sufficiently strong to overcome the numerical equality = no consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only way you can disagree with a nominator who says it doesn't meet the GNG is by believing it meets the GNG. ?! You are completely ignoring the possibility that someone participating in an AfD might not be aware of or accept all guidelines and therefore might suggest what they think is an alternate avenue to GNG. Given one of the keep !votes seems to be a logged-out user with a grudge against the nominator, and the other has participated in fewer than 50 AfDs over five years (with a 47% accuracy for keeping...), it's not ABF to entertain such possibilities. JoelleJay (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notability requires verifiable evidence, lack of notability does not. The delete side didn't need more than a vaguewave if there was no evidence to argue against. Avilich (talk) 03:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They were clearly attempting to refute the argument made in the nomination (because what else could they be doing by !voting the exact opposite of it?). The nomination cited the GNG so by saying the nominator was wrong they were saying that it met the GNG. Nobody mentioned NSPORTS at all, so there is no way to know from the discussion whether anybody was even aware it existed. Thryduulf (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying every keep !vote is assumed to be directly rebutting the stated deletion rationale, and is therefore always valid no matter how guideline-defective the literal words of the !vote are. Meanwhile the delete !votes are expected to directly refute an assumed implicit rationale hidden in the keep arguments. How about we just give post hoc justification to the deletes too, like assuming that of course they reject the suggestion that "top scorer for the Tonga national football team" would garner GNG coverage because participation-based criteria were deprecated from NSPORT; because NSPORT doesn't even presume SIGCOV exists when meeting its existing criteria, let alone non-existent ones; because neither keep !voter was able to bring the article into guideline compliance by producing a source of SIGCOV; and because even explicit claims of meeting GNG without actually producing any sources are routinely discounted.
Or. OR! We could take the arguments at face value like many many other closers have and discard the ones that do not have P&G support.12JoelleJay (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying that, in the absence of any indication to the contrary, we can assume that every keep !vote is attempting to refute the nomination rationale presented but not any rationale not mentioned. Similarly we can assume that the deletion nomination is based on the rationale presented, but we cannot assume that anything not mentioned has been considered. So, once again, NSPORTS is completely irrelevant here because nobody mentioned it. What it says or presumes is not relevant.
We cannot assume that those seeking to delete considered the rationales presented for keeping because they didn't mention anything about them. We don't know whether they looked for significant coverage related to those claims or didn't look because they didn't say. If they did look we have no idea whether they found no coverage, coverage that was extensive but not independent, coverage that was independent but not extensive, coverage that was both but they decided not to mention because it didn't fit what they wanted (this is the least likely) because they literally said nothing.
You appear to be assuming that I'm saying the keep closure should be endorsed, but I'm explicitly not. I'm saying there was no consensus in that discussion to keep and also no consensus to delete because we cannot assume things based on what was not in said in the discussion. Both delete and keep !votes were equally weak. Thryduulf (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We absolutely should not assume keep !votes are directly disputing the nom rationale if they don't even address it. That gives far more weight to all keep !votes, and as I showed with the links to comparable AfDs, that is not something that happens in practice. If the only way to make the keeps "equally weak" to the deletes is to impute an unstated intent and overlook that their actual arguments are specifically rejected by guidelines and ignore that neither satisfied the guideline requirement for SIGCOV to be present in the article, then that's a clear indication the delete side was stronger.
Overturning to NC just makes it slightly more procedurally copacetic to renominate in the near future, that's barely different from endorsing the keep. And you've offered no reason why the discussion shouldn't be relisted. JoelleJay (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus because the discussion did not lead to a consensus. No need to relist (but anyone may renominate). Those !voting keep may give any rationale they wish and the opinion should not be dismissed a priori even if it is not part of our notability guidelines – but it may not be persuasive to others. Those !voting delete may limit themselves to citing a guideline without providing a further rationale and the opinion should not be dismissed a priori even if the citation is not apposite – but it may not be persuasive to others. Rightly or wrongly, some closers will close according to their own opinions about the article so it pays to !vote persuasively. Thincat (talk) 09:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For those against a relist, I think this nearly identical situation fairly demonstrates how a "trajectory" can change significantly with a relist and a bit more time. The !votes went: D(nom)KDK -relist- KDDDD. JoelleJay (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD in this case was relisted much the same, generated a further keep comment then sat for 6 days with no further input. My reason for believing a relist would have been pointless is simply based on that, there wasn't further interest generated, there wasn't an active discussion which could lead to a clear outcome.----81.100.164.154 (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Even ignoring that XFD isn't a "vote", there are 3 well reasoned deletes (4 if you include my nomination) and a single keep that was discussed endlessly and was incorrect. I fail to see how this is a possible outcome given the discussion there. PRAXIDICAE🌈22:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from closing admin - There were two keep votes, not one. User:SmokeyJoe made a comment towards the end that was clearly a keep vote even though it didn't have a bolded keep in front of it. As I mentioned in the closing statement, the article was heavily modified throughout the course of the MfD to remove any content that might be an WP:ATTACK. Many of the delete votes were made before or during the the time that the article was being modified. As it stands now, the draft is two sentences: the first is a basic description of the organization, and the second is a sourced description of two public lists that the organization was added to. It strains credulity to claim that the current version of the draft is an attack page, even though the original version might have been. While it's rather unlikely that the current version of this draft would ever be approved to become an article, that isn't a valid reason to delete it. The bar is quite low for drafts, since they're NOINDEXed and generally difficult to find. —ScottyWong— 23:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I only made one pass through the nominated page and the nomination, and considered the nomination to be ridiculous, it absolutely does not meet G10. I was leaving it for later to think what should be done with it, almost certainly a merge suggestion. Drafts may be destined to become part of an existing article, their not being likely to become a standalone page is not a reason for deletion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Scottywong. The current version of the draft merely states facts as neutrally as possible to reliable sources. The offending content from the time the deletion nomination was first made has since been removed.4meter4 (talk) 02:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and note that a Revdel of the objectionable content would render much of the remaining objections moot. Not that I'm necessarily endorsing that, just noting that that's one way of handling attacking material in an otherwise appropriate article. Jclemens (talk) 03:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse, although my !vote to Delete was, as noted, with respect to essentially the same version of the draft as is now being viewed. The closer had four possible actions, three of which would have been valid conclusions, and one of which would have been wrong. The wrong answer would have been Keep, and the close wasn't a Keep. Any of Delete, No Consensus, or Relist would have been valid conclusions by the closer. In view of the extent of changes, Relist would have been good, and No Consensus for a draft isn't that different. As the closer says, drafts are only occasionally deleted, and they should even less often be deleted by overturning a close. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (no consensus). If the page were in mainspace (if the journal passed WP:NJOURNALS), then the contention over claims and sources would and should be sorted by editing and discussion on the talk page. In draftspace, the same doesn’t really happen, which is my guess for why it was taken to MfD. Mfd is the wrong forum to fix bad drafting. Draftspace exists to host bad drafts. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Scottywong's analysis above strikes me as reasonable. Delete would ordinarily be the right closure given the numbers, but the changes made during the discussion mean that this isn't an ordinary case. I agree with Robert that a relist might have been appropriate, but what the closer did is within discretion, in my view. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
