Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 May 23

< 2022 May 22
2022 May 24 >

23 May 2022

  • Pushpam Priya Choudhary – Relist. The long list of references was presented halfway through this DRV, so the participants at neither AfD had the chance to review them. It seems that the "endorse" !voters were more annoyed with the nominator's behavior than anything, but in the end legitimate arguments from the nominator such as their reply to the BLP1E angle went unanswered. Relisting is often a good idea when there's unfinished business, especially after a lightly attended AfD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Pushpam Priya Choudhary (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The relevant guideline says that a person is notable if "The person founded, leads, or operates a major political party or similar electoral organisation" and also if "The person is a major local political figures who have received significant press coverage outside their specific region". The concerned person Pushpam Priya Choudhary fulfils both these criteria. She founded a political party in which she is an elected President and also the candidate for the Chief Minister post in the State of Bihar in India. Her party contested is 148 constituencies in the last General Elections, the highest number of seats fought by any political party. Her party named The Plurals Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurals_Party) got hundreds of thousands of popular votes. Currently She has millions of followers and supporters which can be verified from her social media accounts as mentioned on the page. Just because the current central and state governments in India are working in a fascist manner and their supporters/workers in the digital space are working day and night to downgrade opposition leaders, a genuine and eligible article should not be pulled down in a discriminatory manner. Who will decide if an opposition upcoming politician is popular or not in a country which is ranking below 150 in the Press Freedom Index? In any case, in the age of digital coverage of news and reporting, press coverage should not only be judged by the coverage done by mainstream media (though Pushpam Priya Choudhary also has significant coverage there), but also in other spaces as in the current global practices specially in India, mainstream media is working under too much pressure from the governments. I will request the users to please don't allow a global platform like Wikipedia to be used as a political tool for fascism in a democratic country which is struggling to keep its democratic nature. Let's everyone have a fair opportunity and level playing field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakshinamurti (talk • contribs)

Robert McClenon (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to do bludgeoning. However, I am sorry if it appears so. I am just trying to convey that the person here is a notable one in her field. She is fulfilling the criteria of notability. If overturning is not possible, I am requesting for *Temporary Undeletion so that the article can be looked into with fresh eyes by other contributors and notability can be discussed there in a more detailed manner. Dakshinamurti (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Katie Nixon – Deletion endorsed. Lawn bowling is not listed on WP:NSPORT. When there is no specific WP:SNG criteria applicable to the case, the only thing that matters is meeting WP:GNG. Hence, I have discarded some of the arguments in favor of overturning to "no consensus", such as: 1) this case is about a choice of which guideline to follow and there is no objective way to determine which one is more valid (no, actually there is no guideline that says a European champion of lawn bowling is notable, so any argument based on that is rightly thrown out); 2) a majority of the AfD !votes cited non-policy reasons (not true, especially of the "delete" side); 3) !voting without giving a detailed justification. To be fair, there were certainly policy-based "keep" !votes in the AfD that argued that GNG was met (which is in fact a subjective determination the closing admin should not supervote over, if that was what the "keep" !votes actually said), as well as policy-based "overturn" !votes in this DRV. However, as a whole they form a minority compared to the policy-based "endorse" !votes, so overall consensus is to endorse. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Katie Nixon (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I really don't see how the closing statement can be seen as anything more than a supervote. The majority of the keep votes seem to be citing non policy based reasons for keeping and the sourcing has not been shown to be sufficient. On the contrary, the claims were that the sourcing is sufficient and that Nixon's status as a European champion is clearly sufficient to prove notability. It is not the closer's job to decide whether or not sourcing is sufficient. If it were then we would not have AfD discussions. We would just mandate any admin to delete any article they thought was insufficiently sourced or decided was not notable enough. Closing an AfD that was at best a keep and at worst a no consensus as a delete makes an irrelevant nonsense of the whole AfD process and is a worrying extension of the closer's remit. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to no consensus. There is none to be found in that discussion. Star Mississippi 17:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you please explain how you concluded there was no consensus? Are you counting votes or just ignoring the conclusions of the recent RFC on how we should approach sportspersons’ notability? Spartaz Humbug! 18:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Certainly. Not counting noses, but because there are valid opinions on both sides. I say this as someone who was totally neutral whose only contribution was relisting it for more input. The way I read it, those arguing keep were doing so in the sense that being a European championship garnered coverage that hadn't yet been found, not that she was notable by virtue of being a European championship, which would be a misread of the recent consensus. Whereas those arguing for delete said what was present wasn't GNG compliant and didn't think there was more to be found. That to me is a clear no consensus. I'd argue the disparate opinions here from established contributors underscore that. Star Mississippi 00:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I think you are overlooking WP:SPORTCRIT #5, which requires deletion of articles about sportspeople if no WP:SIGCOV can be found - an argument that sources might exist cannot override the requirement to provide at least one. BilledMammal (talk) 01:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I guess I was looking at the BBC article as more of a start than a "that's all" that exists in reading the no-consensus, but you may be right. I still don't see a strong consensus here or at the AfD. Unfortunately sports discussions are still clear as mud as you and I have discussed... somewhere. Star Mississippi 01:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't see any mention or hint of potential sources to be found in the AfD. Pipesmoking Legend and Huggums537 seemed to be satisfied with the known sources. Sjakkalle may have found other articles, but they should have just included them in that case. Necrothesp didn't mention sources at the AfD, and his nomination above might contradict your interpretation. Flatscan (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. My "keep" vote in the discussion pointed directly to the fact that Nixon has received coverage in national media such as the BBC, and I linked to an article there. That is absolutely policy and guideline based (WP:GNG) and there is no rationale as to why that is being dismissed as a "non policy based reason". Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, Closing statement is accurate and reasonable. Of the "keep" voting editors only one identified any specific published sources supporting their position and they offered a single BBC article. GNG looks for multiple sources. An editor produced an assessment table and no editors pushed back on it. Several editors claimed that a European championship is enough to establish notability but this is not supported by notability guidelines. NSPORT points out that this is not a valid criteria, see Q8. Gab4gab (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, per Gab4gab. Consensus is based on strength of argument, and the arguments for keep were very weak - I note that the only editor who did provide a source only provided one and didn't even claim it was WP:SIGCOV, just that it was The most substantive BBC article covering Nixon. BilledMammal (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting for Temporary Undeletion to see the edit history. Chirota (talk) 06:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sick of users accusing admins of supervoting because they did not apply the non existent policy the user cites in their argument. Let's see exactly what NSPORTS says
    • An athlete is likely to have received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources, and thus be notable, if they have been successful in a major competition or won a significant honor, as listed on this page.
  • Lawn Bowling is not listed in the notability standard and therefore it cannot be a policy based assertion that winning a major championship qualifies under NSPORTS which was the opinion advanced by the OP. I was also mindful of this discussion which found a community consensus that at least one substantial source was required for sports notability. The remaining keep votes do not address the requests to identify substantial coverage but are basically champion = notable, per someone or an assertion of GNG but not actually providing the substantial source. Indeed one keep vote argued for an aggregation of minor sources which is not only clearly in contravention of the RFC but is hardly a GNG supporting argument. Taking the policy into account and assessing the arguments against that policy I found that most of the keep votes either asserted non-policy based arguments around all major champions being notable or failed to provide the substantial source required by a widely attended RFC on sports notability. Basically the only way I could have not found a consensus to delete would have been to have supervoted. Spartaz Humbug! 18:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus - If a majority of the participants in the AFD are citing non-policy reasons, that doesn't create a consensus for the minority, only a lack of consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The content couldn't be seen as temundelete wasn't granted. From the AfD discussion it was clear that the keep side was more inclined to forcefully establish Nixon's notability for being European Champion. Whereas there is no policy based notability criteria that confirms such claim. We all know, its not about the vote count but the policy based argumentation that prevails in AfD. Moreover, the keep side couldn't address failing GNG concern adequately. In that light, I don't see why I should opt for overturn. The closure was very much in line with WP:CLOSEAFD. Chirota (talk) 01:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse Do I think we should have articles like this? Yeah. But the guideline-based arguments were mostly on one side. I'd also likely endorse a NC close, but I don't see how this isn't within discretion. Hobit (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus not only per Star Mississippi, but because while evaluating the strength of policy based arguments is within closing admin's discretion, the argument in this case is about notability guidelines where WP:DGFA and similar guidance leave no room for a closer to discount !votes which they feel fail to align with their interpretation of guidelines. Jclemens (talk) 05:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • What on earth are you talking about? There is a clear outcome from the RFC that guided my conclusion. The deletion arguments reflected that policy. Are you seriously arguing that as a closing admin I am supposed to give the same weight to votes that are not based on actual policy because admins are not supposed to interpret it? That is directly opposed to ROUGH CONSENSUS. Spartaz Humbug! 07:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Appears he's trying to render guidelines pointless, since he's saying any interpretation someone may make of a guideline, no matter how tortured, can't be discounted because the closer interprets it differently, since DGFA doesn't explicitly spell that out. Since DGFA is a guideline (maybe) whoever closes this by that logic can't ignore anyone's interpretation of DGFA itself, which of course leads to absolute nonsense... --81.100.164.154 (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That's pejorative, but essentially correct. Read DGFA carefully--what it articulates are that policies are not negotiable, but guidelines are, and that is entirely consistent with the wording at CAT:G. Does no one else regularly consider the distinction between policies and guidelines? Jclemens (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Despite being right next to the DGFA statement you cited, this somehow missed your attention: a local consensus can suspend a guideline in a particular case where suspension is in the encyclopedia's best interests, but this should be no less exceptional in deletion than in any other area. CAT:G says pretty much the same thing: guidelines represent a higher level of consensus than individual discussions and should be followed at the latter's expense if necessary. "Occasional exceptions" are just that, "exceptions". Avilich (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The vast majority of deletions are uncontroversial and do not involve exceptions. Those that come to this venue are the occasional exceptions. I get that a lot of people would like a 'flat' hierarchy where N is a policy, but that's not what we have here. I note Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Upgrade GNG to policy status. Jclemens (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      "Those that come to this venue are the occasional exceptions". Don't make stuff up, anybody can bring anything here so there's nothing exceptional about that. DGFA clearly says that, in the lack of a consensus to suspend the guidelines, the closer must give said guideline no less weight than any other policy. None of the keep voters argued that N/GNG should be suspended, so this is not an exceptional case. Avilich (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Guidelines aren't policy. Jclemens (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:Policies and guidelines (policy) distinguishes between them, but it often refers to them collectively as "policies and guidelines" (Ctrl-F returns 33 matches) or "guidelines and policies" (3 matches). WP:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays – an "explanatory essay" tagged with {{supplement}} and linked prominently in a {{See}} at the top of WP:Policies and guidelines#Role – states: There is no bright line between what the community chooses to call a "policy" or a "guideline" or an "essay" or an "information page". I am confident that your interpretation does not reflect consensus, and I will propose a small clarification at WT:Deletion guidelines for administrators after this DRV has been closed.
      Coming at this from a different angle, consider a case where an editor claims that material has been copied from the nominated article to a different article and that WP:Copying within Wikipedia (guideline) thus prohibits deletion. Another participant claims that no such copying has occurred, so CWW does not apply. (For the sake of this hypothetical, assume that exactly one is correct and ignore any nuanced possibilities.) Is it your stance that the closer is forbidden from evaluating which statement is true? Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The AFD discussion was solely concerned with "notability" but we have no policies concerning the notability of topics, including for articles about people or sportspeople. After careful thought a reviewer may consider our notability guidelines do not give appropriate advice in the particular (exceptional) circumstances. It is up to the individual reviewer to decide whether the particular circumstances are exceptional. Anyone claiming there are cannot be exceptions in a particular case are arguing in breach of the guidelines (which they are entitled to do but we are not required to agree). Policies such as WP:V and WP:BLP may sometimes apply that would require deletion of articles but such matters were not raised in the discussion and so were not refuted. On this basis there was no consensus in the discussion. Thincat (talk) 10:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • What a ridiculous argument. You are correct that we do not have a guideline that covers Lawn Bowling. NSPORTS provides a basis to assume notability for sportspeople but GNG is the guide where it is not met. We are in a transitional period from a period where we were much more permissive in what we allowed and this may well have qualified under that. The RFC I linked above was exceedingly well attended and there was a clear documented consensus that the community now expected sports bios to have at least one substantial source. None of the keep arguments addressed this despite being persistently asked to identify the substantial source. No one made a claim to exceptionalism and regardless of that what gives the keep side the right to create a wholly different basis for inclusion as a local consensus against a widely supported community discussion when the arguments they were employing were not only routine but discussed to death in the RFC. Spartaz Humbug! 18:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse While greater leeway (exceptions) exists for guidelines than policies, nobody in the discussion gave any evidence that this case is exceptional. Ignoring all votes which do not comply with the guidelines was therefore mandated by WP:DGFA and WP:CONLEVEL. All the keep votes violated the consensus rules of GNG and SPORTCRIT, so it's only right that they be ignored and a consensus be formed from the other side's opinions. Avilich (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question (context, I'm active at AfD, don't often comment here) Is it normal for someone who participates in a discussion where consensus is questionable to also close the discussion? My perception is that it would have been better for someone uninvolved to close it, but that's just a feeling, I don't know what the guidance/policy would say, hence my question... CT55555 (talk) 13:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The closer was Spartaz, who did not participate in the AFD discussion. See WP:CLOSEAFD as a starting point for guidance/policy. The closer should not be an involved editor. Gab4gab (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Sorry, I confused the last comment with the closing analysis. Thanks for helping me learn. CT55555 (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The keep supporters failed to address the sourcing concerns, especially the "significant coverage" required by WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT/WP:SPORTCRIT. No one engaged with BilledMammal's source assessment table that evaluated each source as insufficient for GNG. Only Sjakkalle pointed to one specific source near the end.
    • Pipesmoking Legend cited GNG and was challenged within an hour by Spiderone, but their comment was not updated. Since GNG's requirement for significant coverage in multiple sources was not met at any point in the AfD, this recommendation should receive very little weight.
    • Necrothesp cited no policy or guideline, even to argue for an exception, despite Gab4gab providing relevant links. Referring to an old version of NSPORT and explaining why it should still apply would have been a possible approach.
    • Huggums537's "combined coverage" based on WP:BASIC was not rebutted explicitly, but BilledMammal's table indicates that even their sum is not much.
    • The BBC article found by Sjakkalle is arguably stronger than the one in the table – semi-finals versus quarter-finals, plus their reactions to losing – but Gab4gab contended that it is still short of significant coverage and that their reactions are not independent.
    • As a side note, particularly for those who cannot view the deleted article, Nixon's championships include a gold medal in Ladies Pairs at the 2011 European Bowls Championships and Women's Triples Champions at the 2013 British Isles Bowls Championships. As far as I can tell from their Wikipedia articles – I didn't find anything useful with a quick web search – the European Bowls Championships are not part of the European Championships. Flatscan (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. As per the AfD source analysis, and discussion, all sources lacked significant coverage. Correct close. I guess that a merge could have been possible, but no one suggested one. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. Classic supervote. And the closer's behaviour at this debate leaves a lot to be desired. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The closer has made four posts. The first is a reasonable challenge to an over-brief !vote. The 2nd looks a reasonable closer comment, until I realise that the preceding dot point is also theirs, self-declaring a sickness bias. The 3rd and 4th come across as aggressive. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2022_May_23