Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 September 26

Raffiey Nasir (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The tone of the article was adequately neutral, there were references to the great majority of the biography info and there was no COI. ResearchedEditor100 (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If any admins are passing by, I'd appreciate a temp-undelete here. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Cryptic. I'm at weak overturn: I think this article is unlikely to be kept in the long term, but G11 applies only to pages that are "exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements", which is a pretty high standard. WP:FIELD comments that "Blatant spam is not articles with a questionable tone", and I think that's what we're dealing with here: the article could use a cleanup tag, but that doesn't make it exclusively promotional. That said, I won't lose any sleep if the G11 is endorsed, and since the article would very likely be deleted at AfD I'd strongly encourage the author to find another article to work on instead. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse CSD G11 Undeleted and recreated while I was doing NPP, so found it via there. Obviously filled with puffery ("he showed a talent for the visual arts early on", "quickly became popular", "His brand took off internationally when", "had a significant boost" bla bla). Looks like the subject isn't notable anyway. ~Styyx^Talk? 21:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Styyx,

  The puffery was unintentional, I try to always write in a positive manner that engages the reader. I'd be more than happy to remove these phrases, I already have a revised version in place.

  Kind regards, ResearchedEditor100 (talk) 09:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are evaluating the deleted version, not what it could have been. And again, I doubt that this is notable, so I'd advise against that. ~Styyx^Talk? 10:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That content was moderately promotional. It reads like it came from the subject's own website or marketing material and I too would wonder if there was a conflict of interest somewhere if I saw that.—S Marshall T/C 23:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy, send to AFD, essentially per Extraordinary Writ. Indeed, tone was overly promotional, but that can be addressed by editing rather than deleting. I am not persuaded of notability, but the sources provided (and potentially others) can better be evaluated at AFD. No criticism of the admin pushing the button on the speedy, which was not unreasonable given the tone and suspicion of COI. But given author's assurances of no COI, plausible claims of notabiity (even if unclear if valid), and local sources including in other languages than English, it warrants a closer look with more eyes. Martinp (talk) 12:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Struck my !vote above, now say Endorse deletion. Whatever the merits of the arguments, the author has now submitted a draft, and time will tell what will come of it (it seems it will need at the very least a rewrite to be accepted). That seems likes the approach most likely to eventually lead to a decent article, if one is warranted at all, so no reason to overturn this deletion remains. Martinp (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse G11. The prose was promotional to such an extent that the article would need a full rewrite by somebody without a promotional agenda; WP:TNT applies. Sandstein 12:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Clearly written as an advertisement/promotion. Possible WP:COI too but there is enough to satisfy G11 even without COI. The subject is possibly notable and a more neutrally-written could be created (and challenged at AFD), but that is not the scope of this discussion. Frank Anchor 13:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not sure where ResearchedEditor100's revised version of this article is (as it isn't in Draft or User space) but I'd recommend submitting the non-promotional version of this article to AFC rather than trying to rewrite this one which was full of promotional language more suitable for a personal website. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the tip, Liz. I will submit to AFC. ResearchedEditor100 (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Draft:Raffiey Nasir

  You can access the draft here, if you're interested. ResearchedEditor100 (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Close call. I think it's fairly easy to fix, but it was certainly not neutral or even close to it. send to AfD seems like the best way forward but I can't really fault the admin here. Hobit (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to AfD as any contested-in-good-faith CSD should be. I can see arguments for and against G11 applying, so AfD should sort it out. Jclemens (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The attempt at a revised version convinces me that this really does need a fundamental rewrite, not just incremental tweaking. Endorse. —Cryptic 22:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse G11 - would need a fundamental rewrite, and page creator has already submitted Draft:Raffiey Nasir for review at AfC. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 04:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Endorse G11 because a fundamental rewrite is needed, and because there is now a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to User:ResearchedEditor100 - You wrote: I try to always write in a positive manner that engages the reader.. DON'T DO THAT. That isn't how to write for Wikipedia. If you aren't being paid, writing "in a positive manner that engages the reader" has at least two disadvantages. First, it isn't neutral point of view. Second, it sets off the COI detectors of experienced reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I will be declining the draft. It is still written "in a positive manner that engages the reader", and that isn't neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Robert,

  I tried to avoid anything positive. I guess I'm too positive a person. Do you have any lines in mind that are non-neutral? I'd appreciate any feedback. ResearchedEditor100 (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to User:ResearchedEditor100 - I suggest asking for advice on neutral writing at the Teahouse. I don't like to be asked what lines are non-neutral, because that question is too often asked by paid editors who are asking us, the unpaid editors, for help in writing for Wikipedia. In other words, you are both writing like a paid editor and asking a question that is asked by paid editors. You really need to find a different style. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Robert,

  I took a look at your comments on Teahouse before they were removed. Thank you, they were helpful. With this in mind, I edited and resubmitted the article. Thanks, ResearchedEditor100 (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak endorse. Not that blatant, but still reads like a resumé. Without accusing the nominator of any wrongdoing, I suggest they (and the article's author) read our guidelines on COI and NPOV. Thanks. NotReallySoroka (talk) 05:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adolph Mølsgaard (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I think that this AFD was closed prematurely. It was relisted by User:Liz (first relist) on September 23rd, when there was a single delete, and very recent comments tracking down what appeared to be potential, but inaccessible, sources. Less than 12 hours later it was closed by User:Explicit with no explanation, after one more delete vote (that didn't take into account the comments about chasing sources).I've been trying to engage the closer without much success. I'm asking that this AFD be relisted. Nfitz (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist - The closure by Explicit one day after the relist by Liz defeated the purpose of the relist of giving editors time to find sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. Strictly speaking there's no requirement to wait any specific amount of time after a relist before closing (WP:RELIST is clear that "A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days"), but I have a hard time seeing a consensus to delete here given that Nfitz's reasonable argument that sources may exist went unrebutted. Giving editors some additional time to engage with that argument seems wisest. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist there are only two delete votes. One asks for others to ping him if notable sources are found (and this user has a history of striking “delete” votes upon sufficient sources being presented). The other presents an opinion with no policy basis. With a legitimate possibility of further sources being available, I think resisting would be the best option. Frank Anchor 21:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• We can't constantly keep relisting articles about 1-game sportspeople, though. AfD is poorly attended nowadays and it's not fair on the other articles that actually contain sources worth discussing. The delete outcome was appropriate given the atrocious sources present in the article after the full 168 hours. I'd endorse and permit a fresh creation of the article with decent sources when those are produced (and not before).—S Marshall T/C 23:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If it was only a 1-game sportsperson, User:S Marshall, even I'd vote delete. The case made is that there are traces of long-term Danish coverage - presumably for the Danish League. The article indicates he only has 1 international game - which is 1 more than most players. Either way though - the discussion of further sources was very active and new when it was closed hours after being relisted. As for the 168-hours - the number of AFDs submitted recently makes it impossible for anything but the most committed editor to even read all the AFDs in detail - let alone do the research to comment. The comments that are germaine were all within a few hours of the relist, shortly before closure. This is a symptom of a bigger problem (as Liz has alluded to) best discussed elsewhere. Nfitz (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  But these further sources are entirely hypothetical. If you believe a further 168 hours would have enabled them to be found and linked, then why not find and link or cite them here, in this DRV, right now? That would make a convincing case to overturn.—S Marshall T/C 18:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not about demanding the OP link to sources here. Reading the text of the AfD and checking the linked search as would be reasonable to expect to be done in any close, it's abundantly clear that there's four or five articles that cover this person, at least one is highly likely to be an obituary, given the date. Less than a minute is required to confirm that. Why the rush to delete here? Why was it unreasonable to wait a more than 24 hours to see whether access to the archive was possible? Obviously, rhetorical questions, best answered with a relist. :) Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My understanding, User:S Marshall, (which may be wrong) is that DRV is used to review the validity of the close, not to argue, or further, the case for keeping. I thought trying to add further sources in DRVs was considered bad form; also, we were at the point in the discussion where we'd identified a database that would quite probably have such sources, but we needed to find someone who could access more than the index - and therefore we need a point of discussion. Nfitz (talk) 04:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just some comments, as an admin who patrols the daily AFD log. Over the past few months, there has been a flood of articles about athletes being nominated that has exhausted those editors who actually care and work on these biographies. I've seen a decline in participation overall at AFD and those editors who use to regularly weigh in on the biographies of athletes in August no longer attend newer AFDs on these subjects because, honestly, it's felt like a tidal wave of article deletions. So, while as a closer, I wouldn't have closed this discussion when it was closed by this administrator, it is not unusual these days to close discussions with only 2 or 3 editors participating and, sometimes, with the only participant being the AFD nominator. This is far from ideal but the number of deletion discussions relative to those admins who will close them is high. And relisting discussions just so that more editors can participate in them is highly discouraged. There is more I could say about AFD and the pressure to close discussions with a decision other than "No consensus" (despite limited editor participation) but I'm already off on a tangent that will probably annoy the regular participants at Deletion review. But there's my 2 cents on the context for a closure like the one under review here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist I'm mindful of the contributions of both Liz and S Marshall which are relevant in general, however, there are certain specifics to this AfD that indicate the closure was premature. There was an engaged discussion, the cascade of pings showed responses from interested editors. The final pinged editor, who has been active over last couple of days, was barely given 24 hours to respond. Absent any reasoning, there's no indication why the rapid closure so soon after the relist when there was a still open discussion. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This is an open-and-shut case: three well-founded "delete" opinion versus one person who believed that there might possibly be sources somewhere but did not express a definitive opinion. Functionally unanimous. As always, if sources are found, the article can be recreated. Sandstein 11:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Pinging @Bocanegra:, whether they have any comments on the sources in response to the question lobbed their way in the AfD. Given no other substantive comments at the AFD or here, and the context on participation above, pragmatically it's pretty clear this article will survive an eventual relist if and only if they or someone they suggest have access to the potential sources mentioned. That said, while Explicit's early close of Liz' relist was within policy, it's the sort of thing that comes across as caparicious (absent explanation) and seems inconsistent in this case with the views Explicit expresses on foreign sourcing on his own user page. However, I'm not going to advocate another relist absent some indication that someone would actually have something to add to the discussion. Martinp (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can we have WP:PPDRV, please. The final !vote in the discussion does not make sense to me given my searches. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Sorry for the late reply, @GiantSnowman:. I don't have access to the Danish Newspaper Archive, as you have to be enrolled at an institution for higher learning and can only access the archive at the some libraries. I have never heard of Mølsgaard despite having substantial knowledge on Danish football.--Bocanegra (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• relist One admin felt more time was needed. I think that was reasonable. There wasn't enough meaningful comments after that relist to justify the close so soon after the relist. I'll note that "delete" with the same discussion but a week after the relist would have my full support. Hobit (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Pragmatic weak endorse, with thanks to Bocanegra for the reply, and for the PPDRV. While the early close of the relist seems to have been unnecessary and unhelpful, the combination of the discussion at the AfD and here has failed to uncover enough meaningful coverage to write anything but the barest stub. Relisting now would be process-wonkery. If someone at some point does uncover meaningful enough sources, they can recreate. Martinp (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist or if that isn't a pragmatic choice, soft delete might be workable in light of Liz's comments about AfD closers and sportspeople AfD participants. That is, even with three deletes, none of them argue that they have definitive knowledge of the lack of sourcing that is the theory under which it's being sent for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist because of the closure soon after relisting. I don't know whether it helps that I have been able to establish that he played for Akademisk Boldklub at the time of his international appearance in 1937 ("AB" notation at [1] and [2], redlinked at the Danish Wikipedia article on the club); database listings for 1938–39, 1941–42, 1943–44. But no, I don't have access to the newspaper archive. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  According to this he was a member of the Danish league champions team in 1937. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, User:Goldsztajn! With that we know that he must have played for Akademisk Boldklub. the top league, in the top tier of Danish Football at the same time as his national team appearance. Which would make further research easier. Not that further sources really have any bearing on the close being correct - but that we are still having such quite preliminary research going on, it does go to that the close was premature. Nfitz (talk) 04:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. As per WP:RELIST, it is open to admins to close a relisted debate if they feel a consensus has been formed; it is not mandatory to wait for another 7 days. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as a fair reading of consensus. Article should be able to be re-created if sources can be found which demonstrate the GNG is met. Jogurney (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The claim is made in every Danish athlete AfD that potential sources exist among string-match hits in those inaccessible Danish newspaper archives, and therefore we must presume they contain SIGCOV. That reasoning is completely unsupported by our notability guidelines and should be ignored every time unless an editor can actually vouch that a specific source contains SIGCOV. NEXIST isn't based on "#GHits", so trotting out the same argument is even more ridiculous when the hits in question are on a database that no one participating at AfD will be able to access for 20+ years. Xplicit and other sports AfD admins, not to mention Nfitz, are surely aware these black box claims of Danish coverage never go anywhere, so it was the correct decision to close at this point rather than waste more editors' time discussing ultimately unfalsifiable sources. JoelleJay (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 09:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - whilst it would have been ideal for the resisting to run a further full week, in this case I don't think it would have made any example. No issues with then restoring and draftifying if editors believe they have sufficient sources to show notability. GiantSnowman 09:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd just like to also shed light on the player, so you people are deleting a player who played for Akademisk Boldklub from 1933 to 1945 and has honours for 1937, 1943, Danish Superliga (old Danish League 1), won the Copenhagen Cup in 1936 and 1942. Is mentioned in three different books in Danish football. No one has bothered to run the newspaper archives. It's really very poor, he would easily pass GNG if people wanted to do the research. Regards. Govvy (talk) 10:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  But sporting achievements mean nothing when not supported by significant coverage in reliable sources... GiantSnowman 18:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]