Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 August 30: Difference between revisions

John Fraser (Canadian soccer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This discussion had 6 deletes, 2 merges, 2 redirects, and 4 keeps. In my opinion, even if all arguments were equally strong, it should have been closed in a way that reflected the strong consensus against retaining the article as a standalone (10 !votes to 4). See the similar DRV here. However, arguments were definitely not equal, as the sole justification offered by 3/4 keep !votes was the subject’s “meeting NOLY”, which is objectively false. The subject is explicitly excluded from qualifying for NOLY by the text unless the athlete competed in an event with fewer than four competitors or teams (i.e., when all participants received a medal; as noted by FOARP, the 1904 Olympics only had three football teams, two from the US and one from Canada. The fourth keep was also based entirely on assuming that the subject’s Olympic achievements satisfied ANYBIO, despite those precise achievements having been deemed by NSPORT2022 to be insufficient. On that note, even if the subject did meet NOLY, he would still be barred from remaining in mainspace in the absence of an IRS SIGCOV source being cited in the article.
The incredible weakness of the keep !votes should have led to their being discounted. Regarding merge, as noted in the AfD, the article has 4 sentences, all of which already appear in the merge target apart from his birthplace/date…at least three delete !voters noted that neither merging nor redirecting was suitable. The best outcome would have been to delete. JoelleJay (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse – I can understand grouping redirect !votes with delete !votes, but not merge !votes, which often very different in terms of proposed outcome than deletion !votes. Those arguing for deletion made slightly stronger P&G based arguments here, although those advocating to keep had some interpretations of relevant policies and guidelines that were not unreasonable. This, coupled with disagreement over whether redirect would be an appropriate ATD, makes no consensus a valid close. – Ike Lek (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In what way is “keep, meets NOLY” a reasonable argument when the subject explicitly does not meet NOLY?! JoelleJay (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I did not claim that that particular argument was reasonable, just that reasonable arguments for keep were made. I dislike that implication. It is also important to remember that participation goes beyond “!votes”. – Ike Lek (talk) 23:13, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Wait, what other keep arguments were made? JoelleJay (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  One other argument was that 50 words of coverage were found in Special:Diff/1305535949. An argument doesn’t need to include the specific word “keep” for it to be a keep argument. —Habst (talk) 00:08, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I (and apparently everyone else) did not consider Fraser was considered a utility man, and while his regular place was as a half back, he could play any field position with credit. Later moved to Hamilton to live. in an SPS to be compelling enough to address, nor was it ever put forth as GNG-contributing. Every keep !vote was ILIKEIT. JoelleJay (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That’s only 30 words of the linked coverage, not 50. I don’t see any evidence that the source is an non-expert SPS. It’s beyond the plainly trivial mention example in WP:SIGCOV, meaning it’s fair to assess and would require a response addressing it if you think it’s not GNG-contributing. When closing an AfD, all arguments need to be considered, even those that weren’t explicit !votes. —Habst (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Born: Ontario, December 15, 1881. Galt F.C. Half Back. Occupation: clerk. This type of coverage has never been considered contributory, as should be evident by the fact that stats databases do not count. The prose statement is plainly insubstantial and not worth addressing. I said the source is an SPS, I did not evaluate expertise because the coverage is so trivial; but by default SPS are considered unreliable. Commentary that does not put forth a P&G-based opinion on notability should not be interpreted as if it does. JoelleJay (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That’s all fair, but it wasn’t brought up in the AfD. Presenting coverage is a P&G-based rationale for keeping in itself in cases where the overarching concern is notability. —Habst (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Presenting coverage without any claim as to its being sufficiently significant to count toward notability is not a “rationale for keeping”. JoelleJay (talk) 03:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I respectfully disagree. When coverage is presented and the primary concern is notability, it should be challenged in the AfD in some way. —Habst (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don’t see why merge and redirect !votes should be treated differently in terms of weighing arguments and assessing consensus. They both oppose article retention and they’re functionally the same; a redirect result allows for subsequent merging, and a merge result ultimately becomes a redirect. Left guide (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to redirect or delete (involved) – As JoelleJay noted, the majority of the keep voters claimed that the subject met WP:OLY, when the subject does not due to all participants receiving metals, and the votes to not retain this article as a standalone cited multiple P&G’s in their reasoning while also refuting the OLY notability claim. Let’srun (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete the keep !votes proceeded on two fundamental misunderstandings as identified and should have been discounted. That being so, there was consensus to delete. I’m not convinced the ATDs were well explained either. There’s basically nothing to merge, and those calling for a merge don’t identify what it is that should be merged that isn’t already listed at the target. Local Variable (talk) 01:58, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How do you reason there is consensus to delete rather than redirect? Ike Lek (talk) 02:18, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It’s inherent in the conclusion the subject is not notable, and so it’s an implausible redirect – matters raised in the AfD with no convincing response except a reference to a hit counter. But that may have been an open outcome to the closer as an ATD, and I wouldn’t stand in the way of a DRV close as a redirect, if that’s consensus here. Local Variable (talk) 03:06, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This was litigated recently at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 11#Ajit Singh (race walker), where it was determined that non-notable subjects should still have redirects even if the disambiguated title is implausible. —Habst (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  AFD/RFD decisions don’t set precedents that way, otherwise Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Morgan (cyclist) would have to be explained. FOARP (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It can be explained because that’s an AfD, not an RfD. AfDs are only intended to decide whether or not to delete an article; they’re not the appropriate venue to decide whether or not a redirect should be created. —Habst (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete (involved) – Keep arguments based on NOLY shouldn’t have been weighted, since NOLY explicitly excludes medals that were granted automatically simply for participating.

Also: How on earth is any closer saying that ”As is noted at the top of the page and in my talk page edit notice, I carefully consider all deletion decisions before closing and do not reconsider them based on talk page requests”? To force every discussion about an AFD close, regardless of merit, in to DELREV is simply unreasonable. FOARP (talk) 03:03, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that saying ‘delete’ rather than ‘redirect’ here would be going against the recent consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 11#Ajit Singh (race walker), where the same reasons apply. —Habst (talk) 00:43, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a consensus that applies to any pages other than the redirect in question. JoelleJay (talk) 03:25, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The same reasons in that RfD, to a T, would apply to this redirect. —Habst (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to redirect I do not think there was a consensus to keep the page in mainspace. If a valid ATD was presented, the closer should give it serious consideration, even if there is disagreement. —Enos733 (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to redirect or delete: I see a consensus against keeping the article. In addition to being vastly outnumbered by calls for deletion and alternatives thereof, the keep !votes are relatively weak, mainly relying on some flavor of “he’s notable because he appeared in the Olympics”. This is where a good closer would make a WP:BARTENDER decision; redirect is a sensible middle ground way of reflecting the consensus against retaining the article. But deletion is also within reasonable closer discretion given that many advocates to delete had well-reasoned opposition to redirecting. Left guide (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to redirect, without prejudice against a selective merge. To be fair, I can’t fault Stifle for closing it the way he did. When I looked at the AfD on Wednesday, it was clear to me that this will end up at DRV no matter how it was closed. I was hoping to come here to endorse a Redirect close, but for all practical purposes, it doesn’t really matter how it was closed, if it is destined to be relitigated at DRV. JoelleJay‘s analysis of the views at the AfD is, as usual, right on the money. We had one Keep that is arguably based on P&G, albeit inconsistent with NSPORT2022. Three other Keeps cited WP:NOLY–incorrectly. And then we have a sweeping consensus of 10 !votes, all in agreement against retaining the article as a standalone page. Left guide is correct in pointing out that when there’s a clear consensus against Keep, but disagreement between the various ATDs, a status quo retention is not the right outcome. Four participants made a valid case against redirection or merger in favour of deletion, but had such an argument been brought up at RfD, where the threshold for retention is much lower, I doubt it would have garnered consensus against those wishing to retain the redirect. Of course, a redirect close still leaves the door open to an RfD, as long as no content has been merged to the target, which would force us to retain the history for attribution. Owen× ☎ 13:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to redirect (involved). The numbers point toward no consensus, but in this case the arguments to keep are much weaker, and a couple are, respectfully, reflexive !votes that did not consider the specifics of the situation. As others point out, NOLY is simply not met, and that isn’t a matter of judgement. My own opinion was based more on NOPAGE, which wasn’t addressed by the keeps either. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse or (redirect) Firstly I feel extremely offended that I wasn’t informed of this DRV as I was one of the people who posted at the AfD. I felt given the circumstances I feel that was a fair enough reflection on the participation. I’d endorse the close enough know I felt it could have gone in a different direction and a redirect would be the better outcome. Also, there is no harm in doing another AfD at a later date. Govvy (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Extremely offended? Where is there any expectation that all AfD participants be notified individually of a DRV? I put notices on both the page and the AfD, that’s more than enough. It looks like you didn’t notify any of the participants of the DRV you just started, either… JoelleJay (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you explain the basis for endorsing the close? There were clearly problems with the keep !votes, and the answer to a lack of consensus between delete, redirect and merge isn’t the keep the article by no consensus. There was no obligation to notify participants, as you’ve apparently recognised after lodging your own DRV, so your offence is misplaced. Local Variable (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to redirect (and NOT to delete). There appears to be a rough consensus to not keep as a standalone article and the delete/ATD votes were better rooted in policy. When there is a split between delete and anATD, the latter should always be chosen unless there is a compelling reason not to. The only argument made against redirecting was the claim that having a disambiguator in the title made it a less likely search term, but this was adequately refuted. Frank Anchor 11:29, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn (to redirect). There was no consensus to delete, but I read a consensus to redirect. My initial intention was to “endorse as reasonable discretion, and allow editorial action to merge and redirect to play out, before going back to AfD on the basis of an unreasonable blocking of the redirect”. Noting that the article is obviously unworthy of spinning out from the target. Process is important, but this would be ridiculous. And the post of FOARP(talk) at 13:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC) was a very good preemptive rebuttal.[reply]

How could have the AfD run better? As I have often observed, weak AfD nominations often result in trainwrecks. User:Mysecretgarden made a bad nomination, very bad in not even mentioning the possible redirect target. They are new. Please establish in your nominations that you have followed WP:BEFORE and discount obvious redirect targets before nominating for straight deletion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have a long history of editors quietly reversing bold sportsperson redirects, insisting that they go through AfD instead, which has led to the current situation where redirect is either the most or second-most common outcome of sportsperson AfDs. I would guess the majority of noms do not mention the eventual redirect target, nor does policy ask them to; in fact, per BEFORE (which is not a policy or guideline) states that considering redirection should be done particularly if the topic name is a likely search term. If a redirection is controversial, however, AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change in addition to the article’s talk page. In this case, the combination of [common first & last name] + [highly unusual and unsystematic disambiguation “(Canadian soccer)”] makes a redirect a poor choice, as noted.Also, the nom did a check of newspapers.com, apparently in addition to a normal search, which is actually more than asked by BEFORE. JoelleJay (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically I mean WP:BEFORE#C4, aka WP:CONRED. It is very good advice if the nominator would like their AfD to be productive.

I see BEFORE uses the word “consider”, where I think it should I structure the nominator to “comment on”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting the several subsequent “endorse” !votes, including the closer’s, I support the notion that “redirect” is a better reading of the discussion, but “no consensus” is within an admin closer’s discretion. It’s not as if the close was wrong. If “no consensus” is endorsed, the answer is WP:RENOM, including the advice for the next AfD nominator to make a better nomination. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have the same opinion of NC being acceptable if the numbers were 6 delete (2 opposing redirect, 3 supporting redirect), 2 redirect, 2 merge? If not, what is it about the keeps that is strong enough to sway consensus against a standalone? JoelleJay (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know. The detail of the !votes matters.

At Liz’s 22:35, 19 August 2025 relist, there was a consensus to redirect.

Following the relist, there remained a consensus to redirect.

Only User:4meter4 attempted to put much substance into a “keep” rationale, and there’s no evidence that he persuaded anyone.

I may be fairly generous at respecting an experienced admin (and admin matters) exercising discretion to call “no consensus”, and I have a long-standing opinion and observation that it is more productive to respect a “no consensus” call and follow advice at WP:RENOM, than to challenge a “no consensus” at DRV. My bolded above !vote is “Overturn (to redirect)”.

– SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:29, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The multiplicity of proposed redirects was a problem.

The failure of the AfD nominator to mention “redirect” is a problem.

One good reason for an admin to shut down a discussion is that it is consuming volunteer resources outweighing the likelihood and value of the outcome. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:35, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobit, I’m curious what your thoughts are on this? I also think it’s worth considering the closer’s statements suggesting that the keep arguments of “meets NOLY” were simply “different interpretations” of relevant guidance and aren’t voided by the fact that the guidance they cite is not only deprecated, but explicitly excludes this athlete. JoelleJay (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not exactly sure what part of this you are asking my input on, but yeah, I think SmokeyJoe has it right. I’m considering writing an essay on inclusion with the basic theme that we look for there be enough reliable, independent, information to write an article AND that the topic be worth writing an article about. That second part has been tricky since basically the beginning and is still evolving. Here, I think we agree we have enough to write, the question is if the topic is “notable” enough (in the English meaning, not the Wiki-term-of-art found in WP:N) to write an article about. I personally think John is above that bar. But I also think the AfD didn’t reach that conclusion. I think I’d have closed as redirect, but NC is a reasonable way forward (especially because we didn’t have a clear redirect target in that discussion). Not sure what else to add. I don’t see delete as being a reasonable outcome from the discussion. Hobit (talk) 03:01, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On another review, reading for the “redirect” and “merge” comments, I would call this a consensus to

“Redirect to Football at the 1904 Summer Olympics – Men’s team squads#Galt F.C.“

per User:Devonian Wombat and User:GiantSnowman, interpreting their later !votes as having read and superseded the two !votes to merge to Galt F.C. by User:BeanieFan11 and User:Govvy, noting a consensus against “merge”, and noting that Football at the 1904 Summer Olympics – Men’s team squads#Galt F.C. contains more information about the subject than does Galt F.C.. There were no “redirect to Galt F.C.” !votes.

There is a consensus to not keep the standalone article, and a bit of confusion over two possible redirect targets, both weak, but one is better than the other, evident in !vote analysis of the AfD participants.

– SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:40, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ooo, looking, I added his name to prose with the others to Galt F.C.! :/ Govvy (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse – There was no consensus, and No Consensus is a valid judgment by the closer. Redirect, as an Alternative to Deletion , would also have been a valid judgment. We are asked whether the closer made a valid judgment call, not whether we necessarily agree. No Consensus is always dissatisfying, but it is the lack of consensus that is unsatisfying but real, and we don’t make the lack of consensus go away by overturning. Sometimes No Consensus is a reasonable conclusion, although it is very likely to come to DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse That was clearly a no consensus close. Picking any individual option would have been a supervote. SportingFlyer T·C 19:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I should also note I do not think the keep !votes are weak, considering there is more than cursory sourcing, and that the person won a gold medal. I’m not convinced that is the way I would have voted, but I don’t agree with discounting them. SportingFlyer T·C 20:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  More than cursory sourcing? We had around 30 words of low biographical value in an SPS…and not a single keep !vote even invoked the coverage as being sufficient, so I don’t see how that argument would even be relevant to the close. And, per guidelines and global consensus, his winning a gold medal is objectively and explicitly excluded from counting toward presuming any coverage exists. This is also a bizarre departure from your stance at the linked DRV seeking to overturn an NC close, where you argued that 2 deletes (including your own that implicitly opposed redirect), 4 redirects, and 2 keeps amounted to a 6-2 consensus against a standalone page. You referenced the fact that all 6 quoted SPORTCRIT directly or indirectly, a valid policy which this article clearly does not meet, and the fact that the keep !voters cited NATH (which was challenged) or BEFORE (without presenting any easily found sources). How is that situation any different from this one, where 8 (or 10) !voters directly or indirectly referenced NSPORT/GNG/N, and 3 or 4 keeps were strictly based on rationales like I think no matter what a gold medal should be grounds for inclusion in the Olympics, regardless of coverage. and Per WP:NOLY (which was not only challenged, but is objectively false, and either way wouldn’t matter in the absence of SPORTCRIT #5 coverage)? JoelleJay (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I’ve read this one again and I would have closed this one no consensus. I’d also ask that you please don’t respond to me again in this discussion or generally, as I’m exhausted from your crusade against sports articles. SportingFlyer T·C 13:08, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I should also mention the other DRV I brought, that Olympian could barely be verified, and had a clear consensus to not keep. That was clearly not the case here. SportingFlyer T·C 17:53, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I actually agree with JoelleJay that there is a rough consensus to not keep the stand alone article, but in the absence of consensus to delete outright and with multiple targets for merge/redirect suggested there is little to no harm in keeping the page while the best solution is sorted out, probably at the Talk page. In cases like this, where the concern is insufficient coverage under the GNG guideline and not problems with core content policies like WP:V there is no reason to peremptorily delete while alternatives are discussed. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Eluchil404, under this approach you would always get an NC even if every !vote was either delete or redirect, but that is manifestly not the norm at AfD (see the linked DRV) and would definitely not reflect consensus. I’m positive everyone in this case who !voted to delete and opposed redirection would still prefer the page was redirected over being kept by default (in fact, @Let’srun, @Vanamonde93, and @Asilvering have all expressed that redirect would ultimately be acceptable), and considering both FOARP and I also directly endorsed redirection, and the nom @Mysecretgarden did not oppose it, that’s 8 participants who favor redirection. And I highly doubt @Geschichte would reject redirection to a page different than his suggested merge target, since obviously such redirection would not preclude later merge. The sportsperson area has a long history of bold redirects getting reversed (necessitating bringing them to AfD), so further discussion of alternatives would at best result in a temporary redirection that is then overturned precisely on the basis of the AfD being closed as NC. We have NOTBURO for a reason, why require extra procedures to implement an obvious 70-30 consensus the topic shouldn’t be a standalone? JoelleJay (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Added to this – the suggestion to take the discussion to the talk page of a stub article is unrealistic. It would attract zero discussion. It’s just a backdoor way of keeping. Local Variable (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear, my !vote was explicitly against the redirect. But if a closer went with redirect I wouldn’t consider that a faulty close. — asilvering (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Same here. There was clearly a consensus to not have a standalone article, and while that wasn’t my first choice I think it would’ve been in line with the consensus. I agree with Local that a talk page discussion is impractical. Let’srun (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse own closure as no-consensus with suggestion to use the talk page to determine any mergers or redirects. There was no consensus for one of those decisions in preference to any other. Stifle (talk) 07:46, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is only true if you weight the keep !votes the same as the delete, redirect, and merge !votes and do not consider any of the delete !voters to implicitly endorse redirection (as is standard at AfD; and even when three of them explicitly did in the AfD, and the two that opposed it have since stated it would be preferable to keeping). JoelleJay (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Would you say you implicitly endorse redirection for Olympians even when you only say “delete” (and not “delete or redirect”)? It seems there is a significant minority of delete !voters, including some also in this AfD, that don’t endorse redirection e.g. at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajit Singh (race walker). That would lend itself to a no consensus close. —Habst (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In this case, I would support a redirect over keeping (which is effectively what a no consensus closure is). Let’srun (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Then what is the difference between this case and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajit Singh (race walker), where you argued for delete and explicitly opposed a redirect? —Habst (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I said it is standard practice, I didn’t say I agree with it. What is much more important is the fact that virtually 100% of delete !voters who oppose redirection would still endorse redirection over default keep. JoelleJay (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That wasn’t the case in the Ajit Singh case, where several !voters said that creating a redirect would be explicitly against Wikipedia policy (specifically, WP:NOTLINKFARM in the RfD). If you don’t agree with redirecting as an alternative to deletion, then why did you !vote “delete or redirect” in the AfD? —Habst (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How is this hard to understand…….? My disagreement is with presuming a redirect is implicitly endorsed by delete !voters in all circumstances, i.e. presuming that they would have no preference between “no article (delete)” and “no article (redirect)” even when those are the only possible AfD outcomes. Obviously when the options are strictly between “no article (redirect)” and “keep”, delete !voters are virtually guaranteed to prefer the former. This is why AfDStats groups them together, and why @Sandstein described the consensus in your linked AfD as being “against a standalone”. JoelleJay (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don’t mean to get into the weeds, but the part before the “i.e.” and the part after the “i.e.” in your first sentence have conflicting meanings. Someone who disagrees that delete !voters implictly endorse redirects would not also disagree that they have no preference, unless you think that delete !voters implicitly would be against redirects which is the point I was making above. It’s possible that consensus can be against a standalone article but also a no consensus close is still accurate because a specific outcome wasn’t endorsed. —Habst (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You can read the statement as: My disagreement is with […] presuming that [delete !voters] would have no preference between “no article (delete)” and “no article (redirect)” even when those are the only possible AfD outcomes.
  Per our guidelines, Other possible (non-standard) decision results, and/or “combinations” may sometimes be appropriate and Outcomes should reflect the rough consensus reached in the deletion discussion and community consensus on a wider scale. In this case there were 10 people who endorsed removing the page from mainspace, with only 2 opposing redirection. Given this (and as documented below), the standard practice is to redirect to the target with the most and/or most recent support. There were no objections from the early merge !votes to the redirect targets proposed later (and endorsed by 5), so that would be the clear consensus outcome. JoelleJay (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks; I understand the philosophy of picking a preferred ‘lesser evil’ outcome out of two bad choices. But other delete !voters in this discussion have said that creating redirects like this would literally be a violation of Wikipedia policy (see WP:NOT arguments being made). On the other hand, notability, the primary concern for deleting the article, is only a guideline. So even if you think both are incorrect, surely violating a policy would be worse than violating a guideline? —Habst (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  One editor referencing NOTLINKFARM as one of several reasons to delete a redirect in one RfD does not mean it is the singular rationale everyone has for opposing redirection. JoelleJay (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with that, which is all the more reason why a ‘no consensus’ close can make sense in these situations because everyone’s motivations for their !votes can be different. —Habst (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  All editors who endorse delete or redirect agree that the article does not belong in mainspace. There was a clear majority for that in this case. JoelleJay (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  At least one of the delete !voters argued that keeping the redirect would be a more severe P&G violation than keeping the article (by inference from policy violation versus guideline violation). —Habst (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That is not an appropriate inference! JoelleJay (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I personally don’t think the WP:NOT argument is sound for redirects, but I think the inference makes sense if you accept that NOT is being violated. —Habst (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse because there was “A lack of a rough consensus for any one particular action”.[1] The closer then followed the process in WP:Deletion process: close the deletion discussion as ‘no consensus’; edit the page to remove the deletion notice; and record the outcome on the page’s talk page”. Thincat (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Even when 3 of the 4 keep votes incorrectly cited policy? Let’srun (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don’t think such people are “citing policy” but are expressing opinions suggesting our notability guidelines give an inappropriate result in this particular case. Even if these !votes are disregarded there would still be “A lack of a rough consensus for any one particular action”. I think it is unreasonable to be arguing to overturn the closer’s action when it is the action recommended in the WP:Deletion process guideline. It seems strange to be advocating going against one guideline so as to fault other people supposedly failing another guideline. Regarding the “homebrew” closing action being argued here for closing no consensus discussions, is this approach documented anywhere, even in an essay? Thincat (talk) 08:44, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Since when are ILIKEIT opinions that are not backed by P&Gs given weight at AfD?? We have both a guideline that the keeps are citing that directly rejects what they claim, and a recent global consensus requiring that even athletes who do meet subcriteria like NOLY must have an IRS SIGCOV source cited in their articles. Deletion process states Outcomes should reflect the rough consensus reached in the deletion discussion and community consensus on a wider scale. It also states Other possible (non-standard) decision results, and/or “combinations” may sometimes be appropriate … The closer should aim in any case, to decide based upon consensus, policy, and community norms. Community norms overwhelmingly group delete and redirect !votes together (and recognize that obviously even deletes that oppose redirection would still prefer redirect over keep),(*) they also overwhelmingly discount !votes that are not based in P&Gs, and for sportspeople in particular they discount arguments where a subject meets a subcriterion but not SPORTCRIT. Our guidelines also state Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument and cited recorded consensus. Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. WP:DISCARD states The desired standard is rough consensus, not perfect consensus. Closers are also required to exercise their judgment to ensure that any decision complies with the spirit of Wikipedia policy and with the project’s goals.
  If we disregard the keeps, we have 5 !votes explicitly endorsing redirect, 1 more delete that does not oppose a redirect, 2 !votes that advocate merging a literally trivial amount of info and are functionally redirects, and 2 deletes that oppose redirect but here have expressed that redirect would still be preferable.

JoelleJay (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh (involved), again for the same reasons as Vanamonde93. I think it’s pretty telling that two regular closers gave up on closing this AfD and !voted in it instead. That is, we both determined that the numbers were sufficiently against typical consensus/practice/sense/whatever-you-want-to-call-it for us to be able to make an unchallenged call that made any sense, and decided to make it easier for the next closer to do so instead. That is, this AfD had an usually high % of keep !votes that were not in line with typical consensus/guidelines. So, I was surprised by the close and I don’t think it was a good one, but now that it’s happened, eh, whatever, mulligan the whole thing as “no consensus”. — asilvering (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to redirect. The keep votes were significantly rebutted and there was a consensus not to include a separate entry on this topic. Redirect is an obvious ATD. Merge supporters can simply add their desired content to the article about the club, and it could be that no content would be copied, which is not a true merger anyway and falls back to simple redirection.—Alalch E. 21:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (involved). I still stand by what I said in the AFD. WP:NSPORT can’t override SNGs like WP:ANYBIO that apply to ALL BIOGRAPHIES. It’s a lower order policy. As per the close, there wasn’t a sufficient WP:CONSENSUS one way or the other, so no consensus was the correct outcome.4meter4 (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Why does this hierarchy not incorporate the fact that ANYBIO is of lower standing than NBASIC? And I am curious what you believe an adequate rebuttal to an ANYBIO assertion (in general, not just in this case) would even be if this subguideline supersedes all other SNGs and WP:N, a demonstrable lack of sources on this subject, a global RfC disqualifying any sports achievement from being sufficient to presume notability even if it passes a sport-specific subcriterion, and an RfC that unanimously decided this person’s Olympic medal does not meet NOLY? JoelleJay (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that a minor clarification added to ANYBIO, stating that sports achievements alone cannot be taken to mean that the subject is likely to be notable without at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, could be made, perhaps as a note. That’s what is meant and is what is said elsewhere on the page but it could be said there as well. —Alalch E. 00:19, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To be honest, since NOLY already says that it doesn’t apply in this case, I’m not sure this would make a difference here.

  The fundamental problem is people just not accepting that participating in the Olympics does not indicate notability. That’s always been the problem, regardless of how often the wider community has indicated that it people aren’t ntoable just for competing in the Olympics. There is no simple legalistic fix for that. FOARP (talk) 07:38, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• weak endorse I do think redirect is how I would close this, but I also believe NC was within closer discretion. Hobit (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – I don’t see that there’s clear consensus that would be required to overturn the decision. I also note the nominating statement selectively doesn’t count at least two contributers who took part in the discussion. Generally at a minimum I’d say merge is a possible outcome (and actually merge – too many editors simply then redirect this without trying to merge any information). Because the name is so common, I think that the John Fraser disambiguation page can serve as a substitute for a redirect. However, multiple editors pointed to his representation in the Hall of Fame; however the nomination above notes that the keep argument was simply ILIKEIT – despite excellent sources at this being provided in the AFD. Isn’t that the opposite of ILIKEIT? Nfitz (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  These are some of the more reasonable objections to this DRV, so thank you for that. However I will point out that all of the non-!voters’ implied preferences for keep still relied entirely on an assumption that Olympic medalists are notable in the absence of SPORTCRIT and that the consensus excluding low-competitor events from NOLY could be ignored. These were well-rebutted in the AfD.
  As noted in the AfD, a merge would be functionally equivalent to a redirect, as the only content not already present at the target is trivial details like DOB and birth place that obviously do not qualify for merging. Redirection to the target endorsed by 5 editors is the clear consensus.
  Your comment Where this argument fails is that he’s a gold medalist. And a member of one of only 18 teams of distinction (and the second ever added) from the last 140 years in the Canada Soccer Hall of Fame. also ignores his explicit exclusion at NOLY and SPORTCRIT and was rebutted by @FOARP, who pointed out that HoF would only be an indication of team notability.
  The source you link was not invoked by anyone as contributory toward SPORTCRIT/GNG; it is 30 words in a blog. JoelleJay (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Doesn’t look like a blog to me. Here is more info about the site/author. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And also here when he died. As press officer for the CSA and such an integral part and historican of the Hall of Fame, along with being the author of several books, he was far more than just a blogger. No one refuted this source at the AFD, so I’m not sure why it’s now an issue here. Had it been refuted we’d be into finding and reviewing Jose’s books. Nfitz (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  “As press officer for the CSA” – So not independent. FOARP (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Years after he wrote his books – of which as far as I’m aware the (not) blog is merely a summary. Nfitz (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to this the publisher of his books was “The Soccer Hall of Fame and Museum”, which he was the founder of according to that obituary. So the books were also WP:SPS/not independent. FOARP (talk) 08:08, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to Redirect (disclosure: this was my position at the AfD so I am involved), while I could definitely agree that 4 well-argued keeps vs 6 well-argued deletes should be a no-consensus so that alternatives can be discussed on the talk page, that wasn’t the situation here. The 4 Keep votes cited a version of WP:NOLY that has since been replaced by a new version that this person did not meet, and as such in my view should be given less weight per WP:NOTAVOTE since there’s no actual SNG to back them up. A redirect is a decision that allows for future merges since the page history is kept available for interested editors to view, so in my view is a good compromise. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Why ignore the other 2 people who spoke out, User:Devonian Wombat, including the one that provided an actual source that no one disputed in the original discussion? If we just toss out that uncontested source, then it’s a relist for further discussion surely – not an overturn. Where we can also discuss the additional sources in Google Books. Nfitz (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Because the “source” is WP:SPS. FOARP (talk) 08:09, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I fail to see how the authors multiple books on the subject preceding his CSA-involvement is self-published simply because he extracted the information to his personal website – which once again wasn’t an issue challenged in the AFD. You can’t, @FOARP, start going on about a source being invalid now, when it was raised in the AFD; at best you may have a relist argument to further consider the source that you chose not to comment on at the time. Nfitz (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Because those books were published by the museum he founded. A relist should only be made when a new source could have plausibly changed the result, and it is not plausible that this one could. FOARP (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What museum? The museum was only opened in 1997 (if it is even open at all); some of his books predate that. And when did he become involved with the Hall of Fame. CSA didn’t even become involved with the Hall of Fame until 2017, so I don’t see how even old displays and links to that are self-published; all his books predate 2017! I guess the one thing we’ve established though, is that if people and teams in the HoF are notable, but not those who just played on the team, then we should create Colin Jose without objection from those here! 🙂 Nfitz (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football‘s list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 17:28, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to redirect – as the most sensible solution here. GiantSnowman 17:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This has remained open for over two weeks, far beyond the standard 7-day period for closing at DRV, so I’ve filed a close request at WP:CR#WP:Deletion review/Log/2025 August 30. Left guide (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]