Emil Kalous – No consensus. Upon carefully reviewing the original AFD as well as this lengthy and at times passionate and even intemperate DRV, I find there to be no consensus to adjust the outcome of the AFD. I am strengthened in this conclusion by my colleague Daniel's view from early this morning. I decline to exercise my discretion to relist the AFD. The result is that the redirect closure stands – but I do remind editors that this is not permanent. There is nothing preventing the article being spun back out again in the future if a new consensus emerges on the article talk page to do so. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I hate to do this because I respect the closing admins and their time, but I am hung up because the AfD was originally closed as no consensus, then User:JoelleJay requested that closure to be undone and relisted, which I actually appreciated because I always prefer when more editors can be involved. (Note that I participated in the AfD as well)
The issue was that since the relist, only new views in favor of keeping the article were expressed. Yet after the relist, the AfD was closed as redirect. This close was controversial and brought up to the closer as seen in this thread discussing it: User_talk:Star_Mississippi#c-BeanieFan11-20250315181600-OwenX-20250315162500.
Although I want to emphasize again that I actually have a lot of respect for User:OwenX and their contributions, I think some key points were not addressed in the closing statement, such as the fact that WP:NATH was argued to be met (two other subject-specific notability guidelines were mentioned in the closing comment but not NATH), and the fact that since the "no consensus" relist, only keep views were expressed and some new information was revealed about a source that made it more suitable for inclusion.
In general, I just don't see how a 'no consensus' decision can turn into a "OK, let's relist for more opinions" (sounds good so far), then the only new opinion comes in to keep, then the new closing decision is to redirect. I think the AfD reflects no consensus, at least.
Lastly I'll say I appreciate the humor in the comment, "Please keep that in mind when they drag me to DRV... ;)", but I don't view it as being "dragged" here, we have a process that exists for a reason and we can still respect each others' contributions throughout that even if we're on different sides of it. I hope you understand. --Habst (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as closer: in the appellant's claim, since the relist, only new views in favor of keeping the article were expressed, "views" is a bit misleading. There was exactly one new view -- a weak keep from SportingFlyer, who was honest enough to admit that the source he cited was marginal at best. This was then addressed by JoelleJay, who demonstrated why the source is neither reliable nor provides SIGCOV, basically leaving us exactly where we were before that final relist. Owen×☎15:52, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, from my perspective there was only one new view since the no consensus, and it was in favor of keeping the article, where there were no new views to delete or even to redirect. There was also a counter to JoelleJay's response demonstrating why the source actually is reliable thanks to new coverage from Deník, and that was never rebutted in the AfD, so I think we weren't back to where we were on that. --Habst (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree if it was a blog or a local interview, but the Denik piece is both not only an interview (per the prose attributed to the news site) and it doesn't describe a blog (not the words used). --Habst (talk) 11:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. I had left a comment to the closing admin (that it seems he didn't respond to) that summed up my thoughts (1). Here it is, a little rephrased: The discussion was determined to have "no consensus" when Star Mississippi closed it – and in the period following the relist, the only further vote was a !keep. How on earth does it go from no consensus to then being "redirect" when more people support doing the opposite after the relist!? OwenX said in the close that we're "left with GNG" because NOLY tell[s] us that an individual merely participating in the Olympics does not imply a likelihood of existence of sourcing supporting notability. That means that we cannot even accept the minority view that the subject's participation in the 1924 event likely resulted in SIGCOV – but he's forgetting that equally important as NOLY is NATH, which the subject met as demonstrated by Habst at the discussion. Several sources besides the mentions shown by JoelleJay were presented, including the one arguably SIGCOV piece that although JoelleJay claimed was unreliable and of limited depth, Habst countered by noting that It's actually closer to a news site than a blog because it includes editorial review (with evidence provided) ... [and] [t]heir article on Kalous goes far beyond the two paragraphs listed, for example who he was led by, his journey to the Olympics, his teammates, etc. No rebuttal was made to this argument. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ARGH from closer 1, said with respect and the utmost appreciation for the input from all who have commented here, at my Talk and at the AfD. Because everyone is making points in complete good faith and with their reading of policy, which makes it harder. ~ 2.5 years after the 2022 change to NSPORTS and every well-attended athlete AfD has turned into a(nother) referendum on those changes, especially when it's athletes from non English majority countries who competed pre internet era and in some cases, where the newspaper archives are not easily accessible online. (NB: While I was happy to relist as more eyes are never a bad thing, I still believe my N/C was the correct read because there is no consensus around policy. I also fully support OwenX's decision to close it as a redirect as that's a valid ATD). There was consensus to change the pre 2022 guidelines, yes, but there are still valid opinions that disagree with 2025 guidelines as well. Since there has been an interest in bringing some Lugnuts stubs to AfD, as is well within nom's rights, I think there needs to be a broader discussion on these athletes because we can't keep doing it AfD by AfD. StarMississippi20:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see a consensus here, either on our post-RFC guidelines or in their applicability to this individual article. Jclemens (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting - I'm involved here, but I started another DRV recently to overturn a no consensus on a previous Olympic athlete to a redirect, and this should hopefully overturn a redirect to a no consensus result. The rule is designed to prevent stub athlete articles which are sourced only to databases. While this article was when it was PRODded, de-PRODded, and AfD'd, Emil was HEYed into a stub utilising non-database sourcing. Since SIGCOV can vary by time and place, the fact there's a genuine disagreement over whether it applies shouldn't lead to the article's redirection. SportingFlyerT·C06:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC (involved, voted redirect). While I !voted to redirect and stand by my opinion, I do not see a consensus in the AFD that the article should not be standalone article. I see a few delete/redirect votes based on P&G, and also see a few keep votes bring up references that were not adequately refuted. FrankAnchor11:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see the book brought up by Beaniefan and the article on Hradecký athletes brought up by SportingFlyer. JoelleJay attempted to discredit the latter by falsely claiming it was a blog but Habst provided evidence of it actually being a news site (evidence which went unrefuted). Habst BeanieFan also showed SIGCOV from the book which JoelleJay attempted to refute with a wall of text. However no other user agreed with Joelle’s analysis and the only !vote posted after this exchange was a keep (albeit a weak one). I don’t think it’s quite enough for a standalone article but clearly there was not consensus supporting this view. FrankAnchor12:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Frank Anchor The "evidence" from Habst was a local interview with the blog's founder (as part of an "interesting people of Hradec" series) that gives zero indication that it is a website run by professional historians or journalists (in fact the founder emphasizes the distinction between his actual work and this hobby); it is plainly clear that the blog is not a "news site" (literally nothing on the site is "news"! "News" is not mentioned anywhere in the interview!), so the claim that it is looks like a deliberate fabrication—excuse me for not wasting my time repeating what should be evident to anyone visiting the blog or the interview (and for the record, I was offline from March 12–20 due to not having a computer, so I couldn't have refuted that ridiculous "news site" point). This is the same blog later referenced by SportingFlyer. Since this is a seriously flawed allegation that I'll ask you to strike: Where is my "wall of text" "attempting to refute" coverage in a book Habst claimed to have SIGCOV?? The only statement I made about any book was a 9-word post responding to BeanieFan citing a book that, as I showed in the link to its author's blog reviewing his own work, states its "publishing house" as "e-book". The book itself is seemingly only hosted as an upload to the "Ludgeřovice Running Club" WordPress blog, and is only talked about in media by its author. The "wall of text" appearing directly after in a separate comment is my accounting of all hits I got through access to Czech newspaper archives, which is exactly what BF asked for. JoelleJay (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
JoelleJay, you are correct. The lengthy response I was referring to was to BeanieFan and not Habst. I believe I characterized your response correctly but have striken the term "wall of text" as a gesture of good faith. FrankAnchor17:41, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Frank Anchor, thanks, but you still say I falsely claimed the website is a blog and claim Habst refuted this with evidence of it actually being a news site when this is objectively untrue...he linked to a news site giving an interview to the blog author, but there is absolutely nothing in the interview or the blog that supports it being a "news site". It's a group blog by amateur historians enthusiastic about sports history in their hometown...Do you disagree that an e-book with no publisher, by someone with no relevant professional qualifications, is an SPS? JoelleJay (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I don't think it's fair to say my claim is objectively untrue. The news site has multiple editors that conduct review of the content... This is the textbook definition of editorial review, and the primary difference between blogs and RS. Whether or not the RS is "amateur" or "professional" per your wording below makes no difference as to its suitability for SPORTCRIT or GNG, and this distinction is never mentioned in guidelines as far as I can tell (not to mention that we have no idea whether or not the Sport Pod Bílou Věží editors make a living off their journalism). I think it would be like saying a piece written by an unpaid journalism intern in The New York Times is unsuitable, because it wasn't professionally written. --Habst (talk) 11:59, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the "textbook definition of editorial review", and there is literally nothing whatsoever suggesting this blog does review content. There are no "editors" of the blog, and it is explicitly not a "news" site. Per policy, it absolutely does matter whether the author is a professional when considering whether their work is RS. I don't know why you keep bringing up SPORTCRIT and GNG in this context when that is not where reliability is discussed. JoelleJay (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the response. How would you define editorial review? As I see it, the website lists editors that review content, and publishes historical information.
Where in WP:RS is this professional / amateur distinction made? I just think these terms can be loosely defined and I am not seeing the P&G relevance, but I am open to a discussion on the merits. As I said, I'm not even sure we can classify the Sport Pod Bílou Věží editors as amateurs because we don't have enough information about that. I bring up GNG because the only reason we are discussing RS in this context is to decide whether or not the sources contribute to GNG (or WP:N in general). --Habst (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It. Does. Not. List. Editors! It lists authors and coauthors. The site says zilch about any form of editorial review, so I am very curious where you are seeing "editors that review content". The main author of the blog (and sole author of the Kalous piece) is not an established SME as described by policy, and therefore cannot be used as a source. @Sandstein and @S Marshall are right: this is a huge waste of time. JoelleJay (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The editors are listed here: [1] The Kalous editor and his operation is described as "professional" and explicitly not amateur in this Deník article, which would include review of content: [2]
I'm open to hearing your and other perspectives and I respect where they come from. I just can't see where these claims of not being a subject-matter-expert comes from, considering the RS we do have describes the author as such. What type of claim would you be looking for in this case? --Habst (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That unambiguously says "author" and "coauthors", why are you falsely claiming those are "editors"? Even if it did say "redaktor" that would not prove editorial control as there is zero mention of such and the author is not credentialed in this area. The blog owner said "we want it to be at a professional level"; he and the blog are not "described as 'professional'", you are literally lying about RS describing him as such. If you cannot understand the clear minimum standards laid out in our policy on SPS then there is nothing more I can say. JoelleJay (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Authors can also be editors and often are, and words in other languages can have different connotations depending on context. As discussed previously, when a WP:RS publishes an interview that includes critical commentary, that source is putting their journalistic weight behind the interviewee's claims and it means something if they go unchallenged.
I think it's important to get this right according to P&G, and I'm doing my best to read sources I've found in a language (Czech) that neither you nor I know, so speaking of P&G I'd remind you to please assume good faith as I do for you. Please focus on the substance instead of making personal comments. With respect, --Habst (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You might not know Czech, but my partner and his friends who live in Czechia do. You are claiming a blog with no mention of editorial control, no mention of editors at all, with an author who has no professional qualifications in a relevant area, is "edited" "professional" RS because the author said "we want it to be at a professional level" in an interview and the interviewer didn't challenge that statement. Facepalm I'm done with your trolling. JoelleJay (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Describing Habst, a fantastic editor who's been extremely respectful and is making sincere efforts to analyze the sourcing, as "trolling", is also not appropriate. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For me, this AFD neatly demonstrates two characteristics. (1) The personalities of who participates in a discussion generally matters more than the topic of the article. (2) Often, notability guidelines, which are intended to reflect community consensus at deletion discussions over a period of time (descriptive, not normative), seriously fail to achieve this. Guidelines are usually changed on the basis of something like "far too many articles about xxx are being kept/deleted at AFD and we need to do something to correct this". WT:N then discusses changes on the basis of what people think ought to be done to correct future discussions. Scarcely any analysis is performed as to how AFD discussions have gone in the (recent) past. At subsequent AFDs, strident, experienced participants then carefully and in fine detail parse the text of the guideline as if it were relevant and canonical. Thincat (talk) 11:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to N/C. I'm sympathetic to Owen's close, which I think reflected the strength of the arguments, but there was really no consensus here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The difference between this DRV and the previous one is the nationality of the long-distance runner and length of the long distances. The originator of the stub is the same, and the confounding rules change is the same. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus, as it reflects the results of the discussion. No compelling rationale to overrule that was presented. gidonb (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved). I don't think it is a surprise that I agree with Owen's assessment.
We had two recent clear global consensuses establishing that merely participating in the Olympics does not meet NSPORT and so does not warrant any presumption that the subject meets GNG, and requiring all sportsperson articles, even ones that do meet a sport-specific subcriterion like NATH, cite a source containing SIGCOV (in addition to the subject meeting GNG). This subject doesn't meet any subcriteria.
Initial keep !votes were based either on the explicitly deprecated presumption that the subject would have garnered GNG coverage based only on his sports participation, or on sources that were demonstrably not RS (amateur SPS).
At least some keep !votes hinged on the assumption that no one had yet tried to search archived Czech newspapers, and therefore we can't know for certain that there isn't coverage there. This position is also not in line with our guideline requiring a source of SIGCOV before we can even apply any presumptions of further SIGCOV accorded by meeting a sport-specific criterion (which the subject does not).
This is not a case of the nominator just being unfamiliar with the subject matter and/or non-English language of the subject. @FromCzech is a longtime sports editor native to the subject's home country; if there is anyone on Wikipedia who could access and parse Czech sources it would be them.
Even the linked SPS, by people who not only speak his language but run a blog about sports history in his hometown and have physical access to local newspaper archives, specifically bemoan the fact that no biographical details on him can be found.
Through my privileged Charles University access I searched all digitized Czech newspapers for 10+ permutations and declensions of the subject's names and keywords, including searching all instances of just the name "Kalous" in newspapers between 1918 and 1925, and could not find a single piece of non-trivial IRS coverage.
Seriously: what more should it take to demonstrate that a standalone article is not suitable for a subject whose sourcing does not meet a recent strong global consensus requirement (SPORTSCRIT #5), and in fact even if he did meet SC#5 would still fail NSPORT due to not meeting any of the sport-specific criteria that let you use SC#5 to merely presume additional GNG coverage exists? Can admins just not use their judgment in interpreting the weight of "weak" !votes (especially seemingly-conditional ones that have been rebutted!) or !votes that are objectively antagonistic to our PAGs? JoelleJay (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia, the idea of subject-specific notability guidelines have been deprecated over time as should be the case, because we should have a consistent standard to assess articles by regardless of subject. A new subject-specific guideline was added with the NSPORTS2022 decision (which applies a different standard to one subject area), but that doesn't change the broader picture of deprecating these carveouts including NSPORTS2022 and NSPORT in general. Using the neutral guidelines, I think a few of your points could be contested.
The community trend over the last few years is more in favor of subject-neutral guidelines like NEXIST, which don't rely on making a carveout and I think were correctly applied in the Kalous case. I think there were no self-published sources linked in the Kalous AfD, the Sport Pod Bílou Věží reference is not a blog and has editorial review as covered by RS and that was never challenged. I think the idea that "no biographical details on him can be found" is a translation error, I read the sentence as saying that details about him can be found in many periodicals from the era and I think depending on the translation engine you use you could get a read having the opposite meaning.
I'll also say that NATH was still met due to the top-3 finish at the marathon in Prague, meaning if SC#5 is fulfilled as it is by the Sport Pod Bílou Věží GNG-contributing piece, NSPORT in general is met (I don't think this is a particularly important point because GNG is met anyways through NEXIST, but just for the record).
The issue with relying on subject-specific guidelines as the delete !voters did in this case is that it's contra to the community consensus trend against these, so it's better to try to make your case using only subject-neutral guidelines. Regardless, there was clearly a contrast here which is why I think no consensus best reflects the AfD discussion. --Habst (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sport Pod is run by a financial adviser with no professional background as a historian or journalist, it has zero claims of editorial review, and the interview with its founder makes no suggestion that it is professional. It looks like any other group blog run by enthusiasts. I think the idea that "no biographical details on him can be found" is a translation error So you are accusing a native Czech speaker of not knowing how to read Czech, and we should instead trust your distorted interpretation?No, a top-3 finish at any random 1920s marathon does not satisfy NATH.GNG is met anyways through NEXIST WHAT??The "community consensus trend against SNGs" has been a trend massively in favor of SC#5, with thousands of articles deleted based on that rationale, and a trend massively in favor of demonstrating GNG, which this article objectively did not do. You continue to tout NEXIST as if it doesn't explicitly state However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive. JoelleJay (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, both the website and the article list editors that do review of the content, so I do think that is straightforwardly editorial review. I'm unsure what "professional" means in this context or how that relates to the GNG guideline as neither the word "professional" nor "amateur" appear in WP:N.
I would never accuse any Wikipedian in this discussion of wrongdoing; I have great respect for all of you as editors and hope you will extend me the same respect acting in good faith. I am curious about what you're referring to as FromCzech never made such a claim?
Top-3 finishes at IAAF Gold Label Road Races do satisfy NATH explicitly via prong 2, and the Prague Marathon which Kalous finished 2nd at is a Gold Label Race.
The notability guideline can be met in a variety of ways, including through either GNG or NEXIST (both listed on WP:N). WP:SPORTCRIT is still a subject-specific notability guideline, so I don't see how you can both agree that there's both a community consensus against SNGs and then say that SPORTCRIT is now preferred by the community. Anyways, we already have meet SC#5 in this AfD via the Sport Pod Bílou Věží reference, which hasn't been convincingly challenged.
I understand your argument re:NEXIST if there were no sources, but that isn't the case in this AfD; we have prose-based SIGCOV from reliable sources, which is enough to construct a WP:BASIC-compliant article. --Habst (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the website does not list "editors", it lists "authors" with no mention of editorial review (which wouldn't be meaningful anyway if no one is actually a professional in the relevant fields). The reliability of a source is obviously not going to be covered at WP:N. Look at WP:SPS instead. The author is not an established subject-matter expert. In response to your "expansion" based on that source and your claims about almanacs, FromCzech stated Records in almanacs about regional athletic competitions can hardly be taken as SIGCOV and notable sporting achievements.Do tell me where 1920s marathons appear on the list of all IAAF Gold Label Road Races. Unless you think that any marathon from any time period taking place in a city that currently hosts a gold-label race is automatically itself a gold-label race??NEXIST IS NOT AN ALTERNATIVE TO GNG. jfcI did not say there is consensus against SNGs, I said there is consensus against sport-specific subcriteria being used to presume notability. If you still do not understand how consensus and PAGs work here you need to find something else to do. JoelleJay (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The website isn't in English, and editors can also be authors, so I'm not sure there is a distinction being made here re: the website's wording. Per the Deník newspaper source, the editors review the content which to me makes this a straightforward example of editorial review (and therefore not SPS) by experts in the field (whether or not they are "amateur" or "professional" is something we both don't know and also as far as I can tell doesn't have any P&G meaning). This established "expert" label isn't from me, by the way, but from reliable sources at Deník.
I agree with FromCzech, but that isn't the same as saying that "no biographical details on him can be found". We need to find the significant coverage which is stated to exist in the Sport Pod Bílou Věží source – the source never said that no biographical details on him can be found.
The global sporting scene was vastly different in 1920 so of course the IAAF Gold Label Road Races program (and practically every other modern sports accreditation program) did not exist then. If anything I think the 1920s Prague Marathon was more significant than its reboot in 1995, given that we know "Numerous dailies reported on the marathon – Moravská Orlice, Rovnost, Lidové noviny, and Venkov" at the time. Of course in some sense I think this conversation is missing the forest for the trees because per WP:NSPORTS2022 there has been a community consensus against SNGs in general, and frankly it's one that I welcome in favor of more subject-neutral policies like NEXIST, which can also be used to meet WP:N.
Lastly I'll just say that I do have a lot of respect for your contributions and our discussions even when we disagree. I don't think the cussing or saying I "need to find something else to do" is productive or respectful. I think we're both here acting in good faith, so please refrain from personal comments. --Habst (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Author != editor, obviously. Czech uses different words for these positions. The interview has zero mentions of "redaktor", it has zero mentions of anyone even reviewing anything (not that that would be "editing" anyway, per the definition of group blogs linked in our policy reverse blog (also known as a group blog) is a type of blog written entirely by the users, who are given a topic. The blog posts are usually screened and chosen for publication by a core group or the publisher of the blog.), so what you are claiming is a complete fabrication just like your bizarre insistence that this is a "news" site. The interview does not at any point call the author an "expert", so that appears to be another falsehood.WP:V says: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.[g] Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. The blog author is not an established expert in history; his books are through pay-to-print vendors like Garamon, and even if they were reliably published that would not guarantee he is an established expert.The blog does not say SIGCOV exists. It says his name appears in almanacs: There isn't much information about him, sometimes you'll find his name in an old almanac or brochure mentioning the old days of Hradec Králové athletics.f anything I think the 1920s Prague Marathon was more significant than its reboot in 1995, given that we know "Numerous dailies reported on the marathon – Moravská Orlice, Rovnost, Lidové noviny, and Venkov" at the time. So you admit you have literally zero familiarity with athletics. You have severe competence issues if you think the outcome of NSPORTS2022, either policy-wise or in practice, was against the overwhelming global consensus to require a citation of a SIGCOV source in all sportsperson articles. In fact, in your personal AfD experience you have encountered the robust, ongoing adherence to SC#5 dozens of times, so it's inexplicable that you can think your match rate of like 47% suggests the community agrees with your interpretation. JoelleJay (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Joelle, focus on discussing the notability of the article, rather than making personal comments about the editor. Stating that one of our best sports contributors has "severe competence issues" and "literally zero familiarity with athletics" is absolutely not appropriate. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd endorse the closure as within reasonable discretion given the quality of the !votes and DRV's usual attitude to SNGs, and I'd register my concern at the amount of volunteer time we're expending on each of these biography stubs that Lugnuts created at a rate of three or four per minute. It's impractical to do this. We need to address them all together.—S MarshallT/C09:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Per S Marshall and also per JoelleJay, whose frustration is evident. What we have is preloaded from elsewhere, because we do not have the secondary sources to write our own article on this person, and the AfD demonstrates that. Lots of AfDs would close as no consensus based on the number of keep !votes, but it is entirely within the closer discretion to weigh their arguments agains policy and find them wanting. Agree with S Marshall that Lugstubs should be addressed together. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Relisting doesn't reset the score, and it doesn't necessarily matter which !votes come before or after the relisting notification. Sometimes there are important revelations during the discussion which affect how the closer should weight preceding recommendations, but that moment does not have to coincide with relisting. "Relisted to generate a ... clearer consensus" (which is generic text) + "since the relist, only new views in favor of keeping the article were expressed" does not mean that the outcome can not be delete or redirect. The close was within discretion. About NATH, the predominant view was that the subject doesn't meet it, and I can't say that it was objectively proven that he does.—Alalch E.12:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that relisting does not reset the score, but I do believe that a closer has a greater obligation to address the comments post a relist (and especially after a reverted close). In this case, post-relist editors were divided whether a source was significant. What mosts concerns me about the is this line in the close: [JoelleJay] wasn't able to come up with anything close to satisfying NSPORTS2022 or GNG. This statement was contested by the participants in the discussion, so this reads more like the closer's personal viewpoint than a summary of the discussion. --Enos733 (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except that this wasn't a viewpoint at all. It was an objective observation about the findings of one participant, namely, the participant who spent more time and effort analyzing sources and presenting their findings than any other participant there. As the closer, I may only go by the evidence presented at the AfD. And as far as evidence goes, that presented by JoelleJay was by far the most extensive, in terms of both breadth and depth. My own "viewpoint" is that a thorough source assessment carries more weight than a WP:VAGUEWAVE. Owen×☎16:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I saw the response to JoelleJay as more than just a VAGUEWAVE (yes there were some comments to that effect). While listed as "weak," some supporters of keeping the article reached a different conclusion on whether the sources would meet GNG. I didn't think that (especially the newer comments) were as cut and dried as was made out in the close (which felt very definitive). - Enos733 (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree, Enos733. While JoelleJay was the only participant I mentioned by name, her detailed assessment was certainly not the sole deciding factor in my reading of consensus. And I didn't mean to imply that all other !votes were a VAGUEWAVE, but some arguments do carry more weight than others. Whether I read consensus correctly or not is up for this DRV to decide. My point was that your quote was not of me expressing a viewpoint about sourcing or notability, but of me referencing the participant who contributed the most to that discussion in terms of source analysis. My lengthy closing statement should make it clear I found that AfD anything but "cut and dried". Don't mistake my "definitive" language for lack of deliberation. This was a difficult AfD to close, and I did my best to do a decent job. Owen×☎21:20, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@OwenX, if you think your closing statement should make that clear that it wasn't cut-and-dry, then what do you think about editing it to say that as a compromise? --Habst (talk) 12:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, and I'm thankful that you added the new section, but I don't think the decision was "most agreeable to the majority of participants", that's why I started the DRV. Also I feel like that would be me doing a disservice to all the overturn commenters above, and I'm not sure I even have the ability to close the DRV at this point given I'm not the only person with this view.
The reason why I wouldn't be comfortable closing the DRV at this moment is because the result would be a redirect when I think the discussion indicated a no consensus or keep. You can revert the addendum if I gave an impression that the DRV would end as redirect, I'm sorry for giving that impression. --Habst (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of us can close this DRV, as we're both involved. I took your previous comment to be a good faith proposal for a compromise involving editing my closing statement. Apparently, nothing short of an overturn would appease you, which I, along with those here endorsing the close, would find to be incorrect. I'm not going to revert my addendum, as it still reflects my thoughts about the close. But since you took the compromise route off the table, we'll just have to let the DRV closer adjudicate this. No worries, it's all good. Pinging Daniel, who often handles our DRV backlog. Owen×☎14:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
W.r.t. "nothing short of an overturn would appease you" – why do you think I opened the DRV to begin with? If I thought the original closing decision reflected consensus, then I would not have opened a DRV. I think that is a little bit of an unrealistic expectation to place, although I will emphasize again I am thankful for your addendum and I appreciate your time. --Habst (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Owen for the ping. I actully read over this about 24 hours ago and came to the conclusion that the only path forward I could see was closing this DRV as no consensus. I hate closing DRVs as no consensus (see here for another example when I begrudgingly did it), and still hold out hope that a colleague of mine will find a narrow consensus either way in the above. Daniel (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Both sides made policy based reasons but the redirect side was just a bit stronger. I also think that there was a adequate rebuttal to the sources provided during the discussion. Let'srun (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.