Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 24

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September)

24 September 2006

David Harris (Rugby League Player, Parade College Raiders)

This is a nomination based on a strong objection to the procedure used. Wikipedia:Guide to deletion says quite clearly "Speedy delete, Speedy or CSD mean that the user thinks the article qualifies for one of the narrow speedy deletion criteria. If there are no objections, the deletion discussion may be closed early. If the decision is contested, the AFD discussion continues." According to this, the AFD discussion should have continued. Not only did I object to the speedy on that AFD discussion, but also someone had already moved the speedy tag on the article itself, done it again after another speedy was added the same day by a different person, and had removed a prod tag on the same article. Furthermore, the prod tag should never have been there in the first place, because Wikipedia:Speedy deletions says "For articles that do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please use Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (for deletions likely to meet no opposition)". Obviously, if the speedy tag has been added and removed, it is not a deletion likely to meet no opposition". Therefore, you need to go to the next clause, "or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (for potentially controversial deletions)." Gene Nygaard 14:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Note also that when the prod tag was on there earlier today (perhaps yesterday on your clock), notice was given of a five day period for corrective action to be taken. Based on a sense of fairness, whether or not it is specified in the rules, that period should not be shortened by a moving from prod to AFD. Gene Nygaard 15:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Response as closer: I found the article in the CSD category, noticed the presence of an AfD tag as well, went to look at the nomination. There I saw the nominator submitting it as a contested Prod, but also stating he would prefer the article speedily deleted even though it was at AfD.

What I meant by the phrase "to slap a Speedy on it" wasn't "to add a CSD tag to the article again", but rather "to speedily delete this article despite its appearance at AfD", something which frequently occurs for things which have only turned up here because of process. -- BigHaz, AfD nomination

I saw someone else also asking for speedy deletion.

Speedy delete - playing in a school side isn't an assertion of notability. I'll see if I can get that speedy tag to stick. -- MER-C, AfD nomination

Finally, I saw a third person saying that they didn't care whether it stayed or not, but that speedying it would be against the rules.

Live with it. I don't care whether it stays or not, just play by the rules. -- Gene Nygaard, AfD nomination

I made that two people in favour of speedy deletion, and one person opposed to speedy deletion for process reasons, but with no opinion on the actual article. In other words, not one argument in favour of keeping the page. I went back to the article and examined all revisions of the history, decided it did fit into CSD A7, deleted it, and closed the nomination. If this wasn't perfectly in line with the deletion policy, I apologize; though speaking in terms of processes I have a feeling WP:SNOW applies to a certain extent here, not to mention WP:IAR.

I assume that as closer of the nomination I can't give an Endorse/Overturn response here, so I won't – Gurch 15:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

One person objecting to speedy closure is all it is supposed to take on the AfD discussion, to keep it from being speedily closed there. Not a vote of those favoring speedy closure or not. Gene Nygaard 15:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I accept my decision was incorrect; put the article back so it can be deleted again (and I shall quietly ignore the fact that it will have taken two weeks and five different processes to remove an A7 speedy) – Gurch 16:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

: Nah, 'endorse deletion - fuck process. Guy 21:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I get a say as the user who nominated the article for deletion, but if so, here 'tis: I don't subscribe to the view that the removal of a speedy or prod tag without any addition of matter to assert/prove notability is "opposition" to deletion in any sense other than the panic felt by a user on seeing that "their article" is up for deletion. Thus, when the CSD tag I'd put on this in the first place was removed, I didn't view it as a controversial deletion which immediately had to appear at AfD - prodding it seemed like a sensible halfway house to allow anyone to make the player more notable than he was at the time. Of course, when a prod is removed (as this one was), there's nowhere else a non-notable article can go other than AfD. My advocation of someone "slapping a Speedy on it" meant that I was rather hoping an admin would see the listing, realise that this was a clear CSD A7 in spite of that tag not sticking and close the discussion early - I'm not a fan of AfDs hanging around like a bad smell when the subject is patently not notable, and I doubt that anyone else much is either. I accept that I didn't necessarily follow process to the letter in what I did, but surely this is a case of WP:SNOW (or WP:IAR if you prefer) rather than sticking to the rules and (as Gurch puts it above) "tak[ing] two weeks and five different processes to remove an A7 speedy". I certainly reject any notion that I wasn't "playing by the rules" in trying to speed the inevitable deletion of an article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 00:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, based on the article as it stood and WP:IAR. Article most definitely deleted by the rules. Sometimes, the rules are there are no rules. Steve block Talk 20:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• List at AfD. I don't really understand what happened here, but IAR wouldn't apply as there's just as much evidence that keeping this article improves the 'pedia as deleting it at this stage. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AfD. If the nominator decided to keep recreating the article, AfD is where the debate would end up anyway, so no point in penalizing him for following process. JYolkowski // talk 02:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Request - I have a significant interest in the subject but as a non-admin I am not able to view the article which I need to do to make a judgement. Can it be temp posted to a user page, please? TerriersFan 15:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Here's the entire thing:

Harris, David Sydney: (Born 2 November, 1988) (187cm, 92.2kg) Plays with school side Parade College Raiders, under the coaching of Adrian Grace, co-captains the senior side with Terry Constantinou.

Strong player often plays out of preferred position, but can and has played any where within in the forwards or backs with success. Linked with University of California, he has a big and exciting future in Rugby League.

Nothing there to indicate notability. College players at major sports and major colleges aren't routinely kept. This is a minor college sport and a minor college, and nothing there to indicate that he's notable in that sport or at that college. If you can prove notability, like he's broken every college record or something, then he might pass the bar. But based on the above, he does not. Endorse deletion. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: It has come to my attention that "Parade College" is a secondary school, not even what in the US would be called a college. This makes this person even less notable than at first glance. User:Zoe|(talk) 15:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - thanks to Zoe for posting the article. This is a minor sportsman who plays a minor sport for a minor team. I see no prospect of it survivng another AfD. TerriersFan 18:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse eletion per above. Eusebeus 08:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)