Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 August 9

< August 8	Deletion review archives: 2008 August	August 10 >

9 August 2008

Lewis Chalmers – speedy restore as he now clearly meets WP:ATHLETE. – пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Player now passes WP:ATHLETE after playing for Aldershot Town in a fully-professional league -- [1] [2] --Jimbo^[online] 23:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy restore. Indeed he has. Nfitz (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore policy is satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 04:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy restore - see here. Smile a While (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Jack Wilshere – Deletion endorsed, barely. There is a reasonable complaint here that the specific notability guidelines should not trump the main one, WP:Notability; while that's true, it's also not clear that the coverage qualifies as significant. I note also that both the userspace versions rely solely on non-independent sources. A better draft brought to DRV would be in a better position to make a case that coverage is sufficient. In any case, if the kid gets some playing time this will all be moot--in that case, and if a userspace draft is created with solid sourcing, any admin should be willing to unprotect without a new DRV. – Chick Bowen 02:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

He is part of the arsenal fc first team so a profile should be allowed to be put up of him on wikipedia he has been given a shirt number which can be confirmed on http://www.arsenal.com/player.asp?thisNav=first+team&plid=86459&clid=4421&cpid=703 Jackwilshere19 (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - arsenal.com link doesn't work by the way.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is a relevant discussion here.--PhilKnight (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted - still fails WP:ATHLETE as not having played a competitive first team game. Arsenal make wide use of their squad in, for example, the Carling Cup, so it is significant that he hasn't played a competitive match, yet. Smile a While (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it is remarkable that a 16 year old player should be so close to the first team squad in the first place, so I don't really find it surprising that Wenger didn't give him his debut as a 15 year old in the Carling Cup last season. Even Cesc Fabregas had to wait until he was 16 to make his debut. Anyway, there is of course no policy argument to object to this deletion but from one football fan to another, this kid will be an England international before he is 20 years old, I guarantee you. ugen64 (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Shouldn't be too long before he plays a first-team game then, at which point he can have an article no questions asked. But at the present time there is no reasonable reason to undelete the article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The reason his article was deleted was that he has never played in a fully professional league. This has not changed since the AfD debate. How about waiting until he actually makes his professional debut? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - agree with Number 57, after his professional debut the article can be restored. PhilKnight (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Deletion Review is a venue to point out how the deletion process has not been followed. It is not a venue to present new arguments, or repeat old ones, that belong in an AFD. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - User:Jackwilshere19 is just re-hashing arguments presented ad nauseam at AfDs on youth team players. The player in question did not then and still does not now satisfy WP:N, WP:ATHLETE or even WP:FOOTYN and there is no valid reason to open a DRV at this time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The deletion at AfD was correct and the reason for deletion, that the subject does meet WP:Athlete, has not been addressed, that is, he still does not meet WP:Athlete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The AfD appears to have focused on the strict definition of WP:ATHLETE rather than considering WP:N. Since the AfD closed on July 27th, this kid has got major media coverage. He even got headlines in my local newspaper, thousands of miles away [3] that notes "Premier League club Arsenal has included 16-year-old midfielder Jack Wilshere in its first-team squad for the new season". In addition to the Toronto Sun, he has had coverage by Canadian Press, Setana Sports "one of England’s most talked-about teenagers", the Internation Herald Tribune where Wegner is quoted as "He looks strong enough and he is not fazed by the big games", the Daily Mail "rated highly by Sir Trevor Brooking, the FA's director of football development, and a first-team debutant in the Gunners' pre-season games.", the Malaysia Star, and hundreds of other media references in the last month alone. Nfitz (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn WP:ATHLETE is an inclusion criteria, it does not exclude individuals who do not satisfy the specifications. Wilshere satisfies WP:N, having had received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Alansohn (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with WP:N is that it is a totally unrealistic barometer of notabilty for football players. Football recieves blanket media coverage, to the extent that semi-professional players playing at the fifth level can have more coverage than heads of state. Ergo WP:ATHLETE is necessary to tease out the truly notable players. If this kid leaves the club and never makes a first team appearance, will he be notable for playing in a couple of pre-season friendly matches? пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - While you may protest about WP:N in general, and Wikipedia:Notability (people) (of which WP:ATHLETE is a subcomponent), it is the official guideline on the subject. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria specifies that "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under WP:N." WP:ATHLETE is intended to avoid disruptive arguments about notability of individuals who pass an agreed upon standard; it most emphatically does not exclude articles for individuals who don't meet it. WP:ATHLETE is a great (albeit imperfect) argument for retention; on its own it is an invalid argument for deletion. The whole concept of notability is based on media coverage, not our personal biases. Saying that Wilshere and other athletes receive "blanket media coverage" is the exact evidence we're looking for to support notability. Alansohn (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please read all the quote you gave yourself. It also says that "conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included". That is a guideline but not mandatory either way. - Nabla (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. He was brought on the trip to the Netherlands for the club's match against FC Twente, but was an unused substitute. I have created an outline of a potential article at User:VincentValentine29/Sandbox. Vincent Valentine 13:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being an unused substitute is irrelevant here. By not playing, he still fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is another sandbox version here.--PhilKnight (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn And I must say that I am shocked by several of the opinions expressed here. Subject-specific supplemental notability guidelines are intended as a second catchment that articles which can not clearly pass WP:N can be kept under. They are intended to be used for subjects for which definite consensus has determined are frequently unable to pass the vague overall notability guideline, but are surely notable. They are by no means intended as an additional hurdle that an otherwise notable subject must also pass, in order for its article to be retained. To suggest that WP:Athlete can be used to delete an article on the basis of notability when the article clearly passes WP:N is simply an obnoxious twist-up of the rules. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

insectarium – No real reason to undelete, but I also see no reason to deny a reasonable request with nothing bad in the history. Editorially speaking, the disambiguation page obviously makes sense here for now. – IronGargoyle (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

History-only undeletion; reason given was that page was "too short". I made a disambiguation page out of it for now. –radiojon (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether there is any value in restoration - the entire content was "An insectarium is a tank you put insects in to look at". Davewild (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore It can be expanded. Stubs are acceptable. DGG (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leave deleted, there is absolutely zero content of any value in the deleted history, and thus no point to a history undeletion. --Stormie (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leave deleted, no content of value in the deleted history. Stifle (talk) 11:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Unforgotten_Realms – Userspace draft may be moved to mainspace at editorial discretion. – IronGargoyle (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Deleted due to being NN, locked for constant recreations in April 2007. Since then, the show has been picked up by the The Escapist Magazine where it's contemporaries on the site(Drawn By Pain, Kung Fu Grip) are considered notable enough for an article. Therefore it meets criteria three of the web content notablilty guidlines. "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster"DoeEyes (talk) 04:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC) -->[reply]

An obliging admin might undelete it and put it into your user space User:DoeEyes/Unforgotten Realms, where you could add the updated content and bring it back here to see if a move to article space is appropriate. RMHED (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was going to do that, but the article's a two-liner so there's nothing really to restore. If User:DoeEyes would like to provide citations and URLs to back up the above claims, then we can consider the matter further. Stifle (talk) 11:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the sole content you get from combining the six deleted revisions is "Unforgotten Realms is a cartoon parody created by Robert Moran from Canada, about two guys playing Dungeons and Dragons. Robert Moran does play World of Warcraft." I see you've worked up a userspace draft at User:DoeEyes/Unforgotten Realms - I wouldn't object to that being moved to main article space, although it would be good if you could reference some publication other than Escapist Magazine writing about the series. --Stormie (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Tommy Smith (footballer born 1990) – Article recreated and deleted history restored – RMHED (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Second DRV - (First DRV) - as discussed in previous DRV, is first team player for Championsip team Ipswich Town F.C.. As predicted, started in match on August 9 - [4] Nfitz (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy restore and update Concerns raised in the AFD were all over him not having played in a fully professional league, this has now been addressed. Davewild (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and update as he now meets WP:ATHLETE. – Pee Jay 16:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps one of you Admins could actually do this then? Someone has now created a new article in that space, which means instead of a simple restore, one now has to merge the information together. This is the whole reason I'm opposed to this mindless deletion of players who are clearly going to play shortly is that you end up with this type of mess where no one can access the old article when it's needed. Nfitz (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a new article had been created, I have restored the full history. Davewild (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Committee for Surrealist Investigation of Claims of the Normal – Overturn/relist. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

There was no consensus to delete. The result of the discussion was a clear no consensus. Furthermore, admin seems to be making a WP:POINT due to earlier AFD's in which we've both been invovled. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindu terrorism. --Firefly322 (talk) 12:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure Closure reflected discussion / good close. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The delete supporters only had one credible, strong, reasoned debater and so did the keep. --Firefly322 (talk) 04:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Relist a new AFD. I see new citations and marked improvement. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn/relist There were few respondents to the discussion and the closer provided no rationale. Improvement of the article was made during the discussion which might have invalidated the early !votes. There did not seem to be a significant consensus either way and so the prescription of WP:DGFA would be When in doubt, don't delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it would be helpful in this case to see the article history. If it was improved, if that is the case, I want to know because that changes things... maybe. I'll request a history only review. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done -- I've restored it, then blanked it. I am not aware of the template you put in to denote history only review (if there is one) so maybe someone else could add that. No comment on the DRV question itself. ++Lar: t/c 04:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you NonvocalScream (talk) 04:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{tempundelete}} was the one you were looking for. Stifle (talk) 11:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my own close - I thought Nsk92 and Pete.Hurd argued convincingly for a delete. PhilKnight (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again it's not admin's role to take sides. The inability to recognize this is one of the recent problems that lies at the heart of falling confidence in the administrators and value of wikipedia. To tacitly let this behavior to gone without some editor like myself speaking out about it would be wrong. There has been a recent leeway given to admin perhaps in reaction to WP:FRINGE editor-type problems. Yet some of this recent admin reaction is overreaction. An a lot of this overrecation is not really "under the radar". Anyone willing to do a bit of honest soul-searching can see this. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page". This discussion doesn't appear to have happened in this case. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 11:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Past dealings with this admin (Noam Chomsky quote) have shown that he or she would much rather abuse processes, waste-time, and try and "win" discussions than act on clear evidence. This was not a complicated AFD discussion. It was not a fair-minded close. --Firefly322 (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reopen AfD for further discussion, there weren't a particularly large number of commenters, and sources were added to the article during the discussion - it's not clear whether those who had earlier called for deletion saw the added sources. --Stormie (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.