Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 28#Jack Mealey .282nd nomination.29

:{{DRV links|Jack Mealey|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Mealey (2nd nomination)|article=}}

The AfD did not contain a closing rationale to "keep". This nomination comes per suggestion by the closing admin, Causa sui, after discussion of the closing decision. I do not believe there was a consensus to "Keep" when a legitimate concern was raised that WP:GNG expects that multiple sources of significant—not routine—coverage exists, and the AfD discussion at the time of closing had only unveiled one such source as a candidate. I don't believe counting the keep !votes and relying on WP:IGNORE to establish a consensus to keep was appropriate when WP:LAWYERING was not an issue and WP:BASEBALL/N was very clear in saying "Minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires are not assumed to be inherently notable. To establish that one of these is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Only 2 of the 5 !votes to keep mentioned GNG as the reason to keep, but in a WP:VAGUEWAVE, and multiple significant sources were not identified.

If the consensus is still to "keep" based on WP:IGNORE, it would be helpful to include in the AfD (for other future AfDs or WP:NSPORT discussions) a note that a new consensus is being formed and WP:BASEBALL/N was ignored. —Bagumba (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• {{TakeNote}} I posted a more detailed rationale for my close at {{user|Bagumba}}'s request on my talk page. At the time of this writing ([https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Causa_sui&oldid=441936895 revision]) it is visible at User_talk:Causa_sui#Articles_for_deletion.2FJack_Mealey. causa sui (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse Keep All notability guides are interpreted by community consensus, and the community can decide to use, or not use, the GNG (interpreted however it chooses) or Sports(Baseball) (also interpreted however it chooses), or common sense, or its own erratic judgement. None of it forms a precedent unless it is ratified by repeated consistent use at AfD, so Baguma need not fear that this one AfD will set a precedent--no one AfD can do that, My personal opinion is that the sports guidelines are some of them excessively inclusive, and that the GNG as applied to figures in major sports popular in English speaking countries is also excessively inclusive. But this is just my personal view, and it might be influenced by my low level of interest in the entire subject, so it would not make sense for me to try to propagate my rather exclusionist view over what seems to be the current consensus. As far as I can tell, the rational basis for inclusion here is that though the person met no one single guideline, the combined roles in several aspects of a sports career added up to notability. I do not know if that is the case, but it's a reasonable judgment, at least reasonable enough to not overthrow it. However, I'd advise the closing admin that when closing disputed AfDs , it saves a lot of trouble to give a fairly detailed closing rationale. DGG ( talk ) 21:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse, absolutely accurate close. Causa sui correctly found that, regardless of WP:NSPORT and WP:BASEBALL/N, the GNG was met, so the article subject is notable. The GNG trumps all specific notability guidelines. A consensus to that effect was formed here. I'm personally of the view that this means we can demote all the SNGs to "essay" status.—S Marshall T/C 09:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• My contention was neither GNG nor SNG were met, not that SNG has precedence. The AfD discussion did not demonstrate multiple sources of significant coverage—not WP:ROUTINE coverge—to satisfy GNG. The consensus cited accomplishments that were not supported by SNG, which Casa sui argued WP:IGNORE over both WP:GNG and SNG. —Bagumba (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse. Clearly within the closer's discretion, and the subject clearly satisfies the GNG. Mechanically applying standards based on contemporary patterns of coverage to markedly different circumstances of 50-100 years ago is not helpful in writing an encyclopedia. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep The decision was to close as keep due to quite clear consensus. Even though you voted delete and continued badgering everyone for ever-increasing requirements to satisfy your appetite, you are *not* above consensus. Every time someone refuted your claim or provided something you asked for, you kept changing the requirements. "please identify for this AfD two specific additional sources that demonstrate the "significant coverage" that WP:GNG requires." Really? Three sources now? It got to the point where you were simply making things up to justify deletion. Even now you're trying to circumvent consensus just because you didn't get your way. Shout all you want that all coverage of the subject is Routine. It doesn't make it true. I'm sure to not be the only one not looking forward to this inevitable song and dance next month, spectacularly wasting resources once again better used on creating articles. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 18:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Fucking. Delete. Everything. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 20:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• :I don't think it's necessary or helpful to accuse him of bad faith. He clearly has strong opinions about this, and maybe he should have let it go. But as far as I can tell he's acting with the best interest of the encyclopedia in mind, and he has conducted himself reasonably and with perfect civility. causa sui (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep. I'd like to discourage User:Vodello from personalizing the debate. User:Bagumba makes a reasonable case, that routine sports coverage shouldn't be overweighted in notability discussions. User:DGG also seems to have some issues with the existing community standard of GNG when newspapers are applied as a source. To my view, if Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, then it's certainly not the sports section. The successful deletion processes User:LibStar has been pursuing in nominating kickboxing and MMA events demonstrate that consensus can change, and is moving on the application of WP:ROUTINE. Those processes have demonstrated the value of meeting WP:GNG as pretty important too (none of those pages are nearly as well-sourced as this one). While a slightly more detailed closing rationale might have preempted this process, I see no problem with the closer's assesment of the discussion. BusterD (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

::to be more exact, my general view that it is very difficult to specify what amounts to "significant" coverage in different fields, especially from newspapers--many AfD results have hinged on that, but how to apply the standard is always a matter of opinion. My personal opinion is that some --certainly not all -- uses of news sources in this way for sports does not match my personal idea of what would be notable to someone interested in the subject, but I am not proposing any change in the existing way we apply the standard to sports articles. When it gets out of my area of interest, I'd never push to change whatever might be the present consensus, and when I need to apply it as an admin, I of course apply it the accepted way. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse – Consensus didn't change from the previous AFD in that GNG has been met. –MuZemike 23:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse - Once again, "I don't like the result" is not a valid reason to file a DRV. Clear consensus at the AfD that the subject met the general notability guideline. Tarc (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse' -- The closing admin appears to have correctly assessed the consensus, and the consensus was to "Keep" based on coverage showing that the subject satisfied WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|T-Integration|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T-integration|article=}}

Mr. Ron Ritzman claims that the article is not Cited in notable documentation

I claim it is and give the citation for this important contribution to the field of Numerical Analysis.

T-integration • ( talk Jon Michael Smith (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Hello Jon. Your article was deleted due to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T-integration. Ron's role was to close the discussion, and in doing so he didn't really have any leeway. If you think you can address the reasons for deletion, I suggest that you request userfication (that is, request to have it undeleted and moved to User:Jonmsmith/T-integration. You can then edit the userpace draft article to include sources that attest to the subject's notability. You appear to be a subject expert, and as such you are extremely welcome. However, as you are associated with the subject, you are not an impartial editor, and you have what we call a conflict of interest. You should read that page for any useful advice it may provide. Another thing to note is that we Wikipedians use a modified meaning of "notable", as defined at Wikipedia:Notability. We are not so much interested in the notability of the citations, but in whether the subject has been discussed, analysed or criticised, for example, in reliable third party sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

:*{{done}} User:Jonmsmith/T-integration --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe,

Thank you for explaining the issue of notability. I will submit an updated view of my paper to the AMS of which I am a member to see if its reviewers and peer review stimulates 3ed party comment acceptable to the Wikipedia.

Jon Michael Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonmsmith (talk • contribs) 15:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• speedy endorse I think the above statement by Johnmsith is sufficient to close the review -- he accepts there is currently not enough evidence. No prejudice to recreation with additional 3rd party sources. DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
• Smokey Joe is correct about me not having much choice in the matter and if it weren't me it would have been some other admin. It's a shame that the AFD, like many AFDs on "non-sexy" subjects, didn't have more participation. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)