Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 11

:{{DRV links|List of Simple series video games|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Simple series video games|article=}}

I believe this list is relevant and a good extension of the main article, Simple (video game series). It has a reasonable scope (games released under one budget line by one company). A main argument is that most of the individual items aren't notable, but per WP:NOTESAL and many other video game list articles, this is evidently not a problem in most cases. I would be willing to work on the article and make sure it's properly formatted and referenced (one of the points in brought up in the AfD I agree with) if recreation is allowed. I would also be fine with it being restored to draftspace until proper references are added.

The votes in the deletion discussion were 3 for deletion to 1 for keeping, with one editor commenting but not voting. RoseCherry64 (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse. Could not have been closed any other way. Discuss improvements to Simple (video game series) at Talk:Simple (video game series), and I don’t think the is a case for at WP:SPINOUT of a list. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

::I don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you endorsing that the entire list (90k and that's without references, would likely be larger after I finish improving it) should be at the Simple page and not a separate page?

::I also don't understand the alternate process, if I start a RfC at the Simple talk page about recreating the deleted list article and the RfC finds consensus to do so, would I just show the RfC to an administrator and they would restore the page regardless of it being deleted through AfD? RoseCherry64 (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

:::I start with simple crude checks. Simple (video game series) is a short page, and you appear to have no edit history there. Talk:Simple (video game series) has a couple of posts from 14-15 years ago. You are advocating to reverse an AfD consensus for a list WP:SPINOUT that is completely unjustified. There is not justification in launching an RfC when there is not even a first talk page post. If no one answers, use WP:3O.

:::I suggest that you first work on improving Simple (video game series), especially work to add content on notable example games. Only when the article displays external interest on many of the games is there reason to think there is encyclopedic interest in the list of all the games.

:::I see external lists, eg en.everybodywiki.com/List_of_Simple_series_video_games, [https://gamicus.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_Simple_series_video_games 2]. This are directory lists, not notable standalone lists (see WP:LISTN). A separate page for a list will require a WP:SPINOUT justification and that most of the entries are bluelinked. I don't see you managing that.

:::You could ask for the deleted list to be REFUNDED to draftspace, but do that by asking the deleting admin, or at WP:REFUND, but that request is a very different thing to alleging that the AfD was closed wrong. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

::::Well, I don't know where to go. I really have no idea where to start. I came across a page other editors poured a lot of effort into and that I have had a lot of use for being deleted and I spent some time looking how I could save it. If I need to expand or even rewrite the Simple article for this separate article to be considered, I'll do it. Since it got deleted through AfD, I figured REFUND is not applicable and I wanted to somehow get consensus about the article being reintroduced, so that it doesn't get speedily deleted for being a reposted article deleted through AfD.

::::However, I am really curious about the directory list requiring blue links thing. Is there a WP policy about this? Are lists like List of DSiWare games (North America) (most of the entries not having articles) considered standalone lists or directory lists?

::::Also, the two pages you linked are just WP mirrors of the deleted page. RoseCherry64 (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::Other stuff exists. These other lists may be deleted yet. Read WP:NLIST, and links from there, and consider that it was unfortunate that you tried to improve something that was hopeless. If you are really interested in the topic, surely you can find something to improve the parent article. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

::::::Not to be rude, but you didn't really answer my two questions. Is the myriad of video game lists directory lists or stand-alone lists? Is blue links really required for such lists (linking a guideline that outright says "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable" makes me think "no")? RoseCherry64 (talk) 09:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::::That’s ok, I didn’t answer because I am not sure. I got pretty deep into Wikipedia-Notabily theory, but I’m not so confident about lists. So let me give my best guesses. “Directory” is a reference to WP:NOTDIRECTORY. “Stand-alone” is just whether it is its own article, as opposed to a list in an article.

:::::::The first sort of list is a list that is notable as a list, eg List of regicides of Charles I, an historic actual literal “list”. The entries don’t have to be blue linked, but to keep things confusing, they usually all are.

:::::::The next sorts of lists are justified as navigation tools. See WP:CLS. The assumption is that every entry is a link to somewhere else.

:::::::The myriad of video games lists I guess are contentious. They are generally not ok, unless reliable independent sources publish and discuss the list. This tends to happen of popular singers’ discography, and might happen for a video game series. I am not aware of clear rules.

:::::::Some lists may be justified as being important content, but are shifted from the main article into a list article justified by WP:SPINOUT. WP:SPINOUT is never justified if the parent article is brief.

:::::::Back to your question, Does every entry has to be blue linked? I suspect that it might be only that most entries are bluelinked. I don’t know if there is such a rule written down somewhere. If the group or set is notable, that sounds like the list is notable, which means the entries don’t have to be bluelinked. I don’t think the list of simple video games is notable, and if you think it is, you need to show independent reliable sources that discuss, in depth, the list. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Lists should be populated by notable games and this series is unique in that it has vast amounts of non-notable ones. The most notable should probably be mentioned on the series page, but listing the rest is of no use to the average reader._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Gour Govinda Swami|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gour Govinda Swami|article=}}

Multiple mentions in independent reliable sources (see [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mBMxPdgrBhoC&pg=PA234&dq=%22Gaura-Govinda%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiwyaP406n1AhVMTsAKHc6TCfIQ6AF6BAgIEAI#v=onepage&q=%22Gaura-Govinda%22&f=false], [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=J93QDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA101&dq=%22Gour-Govinda%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi17OW61Kn1AhVOY8AKHUB0Ays4HhDoAXoECAQQAg#v=onepage&q=%22Gour-Govinda%22&f=false], [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Y2ITCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA169&dq=%22Goura-Govinda%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi87YDk1Kn1AhVPfMAKHUHWDicQ6AF6BAgHEAI#v=onepage&q=%22Goura-Govinda%22&f=false], [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ghgSEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA228&dq=%22Govinda+Maharaj%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwie0obb06n1AhWNY8AKHXc-CrEQ6AF6BAgFEAI#v=onepage&q=%22Govinda%20Maharaj%22&f=false], [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nkrpDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA51&dq=%22Gaur-Govinda%22+swami&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjNh6711Kn1AhWSmFwKHdNdCEkQ6AF6BAgKEAI#v=onepage&q=%22Gaur-Govinda%22%20swami&f=false]). More than satisfies WP:GNG. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• {{ping|Dāsānudāsa}} Did you ask the closer to reconsider, first? I couldn't see so on their talk page, but wasn't sure if you did so elsewhere Nosebagbear (talk) 12:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

::Ah, I didn't realise I was supposed to! This is my first deletion review request. I notified them of this discussion, but didn't ask for a review from them first, no. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 12:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse based on the AfD. Advise [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:D%C4%81s%C4%81nud%C4%81sa the nom] to ask the closer for a WP:REFUND to draftspace, to attend to the AfD criticism of sources, highlight the WP:THREE best, and ask again. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse as a correct close by the closer, and Allow Re-Creation in Draft. Does the request for undelete the article go to the closer (as SmokeyJoe appears to be saying), or does the requester simply make the request at Requests for Undeletion, where it will be serviced by whatever administrator is working that queue? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• :Always ask the closer first, especially if as recent as it was, a week ago, and definitely if the thrust of the question is that the deletion was a mistake.
• :There is no way WP:REFUND will grant a request to refund to mainspace over a recent AfD consensus to delete. They will probably Userfy or Draftify, if the applicant accepts the deletion but says there are new better sources. It’s then up to the deleting admin, of AfC reviewers, to judge whether the reason for deletion has been overcome.
• :Bold recreation in mainspace is not ok under six months since the AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• I agree with {{U|SmokeyJoe}}'s statement of what constitutes good practice. DGG ( talk ) 10:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

::*I don't agree that there is an obligation to approach the closer about draftification, since automatic or unreasonable refusals to create drafts are a thing and once they have been made and refused, REFUND goes slower and has some risk of refusal. People who are willing to work within the AfC process should feel free either to approach the closer or REFUND, whichever they feel more comfortable with. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

::*:If challenging the close, essentially accusing the closer of a mistake, you should always approach the closer. If you are TBANned from talking to them, ask someone else to ask them.

::*:If asking for draftification, there is no "obligation". But it is: polite; a good idea; likely to be more efficient; meets good practice for notifications, to involve the deleting admin.

::*:Some admins have a rule to not undelete, while others will userfy anything. If you know that your admin has a "no undeletions" rule, then this is a good reason to not ask a second time.

::*:If REFUND refuses a userfication or draftification request, then the refusal provides a reason to come to DRV. People should not come first to DRV on an unfounded fear that REFUND will refuse userfication or draftification.

::*:Maybe an efficient and most polite thing to do would be to post your draftication request at REFUND, and in the request WP:Ping the deleting admin. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse sound close, allow recreation as draft at REFUND if that is requested, per Robert McClenon. A straight delete-based-on-GNG-failure AfD is no reason to block AfC. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
• As per the closer ({{ping|Explicit}}), an uninvolved administrator must first close the DRV discussion and then perform the action reflecting consensus. So are we agreed on a recreation in draft space, where I can then clean up the sources? Dāsānudāsa (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Pete Vainowski|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Vainowski|article=}}

Pete Vainowski was a star American football lineman from the 1920s to the early 1930s. He played at least nine seasons professionally, including one game in the National Football League (NFL) during 1926, thus satisfying NGRIDIRON, which states a player is presumed notable if they have played in the NFL.

Despite this, Vainowski was deleted in an AFD in which there were 8 keeps compared to just three deletes, marking the only time in Wikipedia's 20+ year history that a player in one of the "Big Four Leagues" (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL) was denied of an article when his professional career was known (excluding cases in MLB when the player had an unknown given name).

Vainowski was not a "sub-stub" existing for years without expansion. The article was in excellent shape at the time of deletion, and included over 15 references and was 7,000+ bytes. Keep !voter Cbl62 said in the discussion, "Passes WP:NGRIDIRON. This is not a sub-stub that has existed for five or ten years without any development. The article has existed for barely a year and should be given time to develop further -- the article has grown eight fold (from 200 characters of narrative text to more than 1,650) in the day since the nomination."

Unlike soccer/association football, in which players with one appearance in 50+ different leagues are routinely deleted after not even coming close to GNG, American football is different; NGRIDIRON is very tightly focused. As Cbl62 worded it: "The only players from the years prior to World War II who qualify for a presumption of notability are those from the NFL from 1921 to 1939. This in stark contrast to rugby and soccer, where we have SNGs that purport to establish notability for tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands?) of players who appeared in as little as one game in dozens of leagues at varying levels (top of the pyramid and on down to the middle of the pyramid) and for more than two centuries of competition. The rugby and soccer SNGs have resulted in a plethora of sub-stubs and have drawn the ire of many editors. While some sports have failed to properly tailor their SNGs, American football is not one of those sports. NGRIDIRON was tightly focused already, and in the past year we have narrowed it even further by eliminating the Arena Football League and squashing efforts to add the World Football League." In fact, the only leagues that pass NGRIDIRON are the Canadian Football League, National Football League, American Football League and All-America Football Conference (both of which merged into the NFL), and the United States Football League.

This is an encyclopedia, so why would we exclude an article on someone who meets the criteria of inclusion and has a high-quality page? This is a National Football League player article with over 15 references and a 7,000+ byte page. In addition to having played one game in a NGRIDIRON-satisfying league, Vainowski also played college football at Loyola and at least nine seasons professionally.

Furthermore, although source-wise there was not much significant coverage, there is a very reasonable presumption that significant coverage exists. As for coverage of that period and prior, it can be very difficult to find, as not all of it is online. Another issue with older coverage that I previously brought up in the discussion is that Newspapers.com has difficulty identifying results from that time, so even if it did contain the newspapers that significantly covered Vainowski, results may not show up through a simple search.

Additionally, although I know that the number of !votes does not matter, to see a "rough consensus" of "delete" in that discussion, you would have to literally get rid of every single "keep" !vote, which is not an accurate closure when they have policy-based arguments. All of the keep !votes cited NGRIDIRON, which states a topic is “presumed notable” if they have played in the NFL, CFL, USFL, AAFC, or AFL. Therefore, since he is "presumed notable," I do not see a reason to get rid of the article.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League&diff=1062478319&oldid=1062451441 Several] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League&diff=1062623668&oldid=1062622878 different] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Moore_(baseball)&diff=1063512108&oldid=1063510382 editors] have agreed that it was a bad closure (including [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football&diff=1062177205&oldid=1062175745 two] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League&diff=1062663633&oldid=1062623668 admins]), which in addition to my reasons stated above, convince me that the Pete Vainowski AFD should be overturned from "delete" to "keep."

Pinging discussion !voters: {{ping|Cbl62}} {{ping|Editorofthewiki}} {{ping|Rlendog}} {{ping|Nosebagbear}} {{ping|Metropolitan90}} {{ping|Curbon7}} {{ping|JonnyDKeen}} {{ping|Lepricavark}} {{ping|JoelleJay}} {{ping|Onel5969}} BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

:Nobody pinged the nominator, {{u|Reywas92}}. Avilich (talk) 06:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn and keep. To the extent that there was a consensus in the AfD discussion, it was in favor of keeping rather than deleting (and, by implication, relying upon WP:NGRIDIRON rather than failing to accept its presumption of notability). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn to keep. WP:NSPORT is pretty clear that it is an or with the GNG, which is what the WP:N itself says. Even if {{U|Sandstein}} disagrees with this, the controlling policy is WP:NHC "If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy." Jclemens (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• I don't think that this is a case where two guidelines conflict and the question arises which one should apply. As explained below, the guidelines NGRIDIRON and GNG are compatible in my view, because NGRIDIRON establishes a presumption of notability that is nonetheless rebuttable (and was rebutted here) at AfD. Sandstein 07:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• NSPORT must not be at all clear, as what it says is expressly different from the above. "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline." (Emph added.) If the intent were "pass either NSPORT (or NGRIDIRON here in particular) or GNG", it should have said exactly the opposite. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• :The key is that it says "should meet the General Notability Guideline", not "must meet (now)". Per Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ#Q3, NSPORTS is {{tq|...meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist.|q=yes}} For example, a 1930s subject could have less accessible coverage offline, that may be found in due time.—Bagumba (talk) 08:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• :: I'd be more sympathetic to this if the "some buffer time" editors appear to wish to infer from were not seemingly indefinite. Evidently on the scale of years, at a minimum. If NSPORT were to in some general way set out a process or a timescale to be considered "due", that's be considerably more satisfactory than the present state of affairs, where some read this provision as effectively void, and others as it setting aside any sort of slack or benefit from the 'participation' element of the guideline. Absent this, I think it's more reasonable to draftify this sort of open-ended aspiration to SIGCOV. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• :::You can refer to WP:NSPORTS#Q4 for the FAQ on the timeframe: {{tq|Q4: What is considered a "reasonable amount of time" to uncover appropriate sources? A4: There is no fixed rule, as it may differ in each specific case. Generally, though, since there is no fixed schedule to complete Wikipedia articles, given a reasonable expectation that sources can be found, Wikipedia editors have been very liberal in allowing for adequate time, particularly for cases where English-language sources are difficult to find. For a contemporary sports figure in a sport that is regularly covered by national media in English, less leeway may be given.|q=yes}}—Bagumba (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• :::: My bad, I should have paid closer attention to that FAQ at time of making the above comment, having been pointed to it earlier. Trouble is, it's a very non-answer answer! At best it moves arguments about whether the presumption is trivially true or vacuously false, to ones about whether "adequate time" expired six months ago, or happens in a couple of decades. To my personal taste, a year of prior existence seems like plenty to either draftify, or at the least put on some sort of "improve or relist for deletion" workflow queue. (This may be the cognitive bias that creating to-do lists constitutes useful work talkung.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• :::::{{tq|Trouble is, it's a very non-answer answer!|q=yes}}: Sorry, It's not my place to be in a DRV to rewrite guidelines. Hence, I am only citing the guidelines as written, and as the !voters interpreted them. It goes without saying that the oil goes to the squeaky wheel. Per the WP:FAILN guideline, good-faith actions to take to improve the article—before resorting to an AfD—include using the {{tl|notability}} and {{tl|expert-subject}} tag to request improvement.—Bagumba (talk) 10:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• :NSPORT doesn't actually contradict itself/GNG. From its FAQs at the top of the page: {{tq2|Q5: The second sentence in the guideline says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Does this mean that the general notability guideline doesn't have to be met?
  A5: No; as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. This sentence is just emphasizing that the article must always cite reliable sources to support a claim of meeting Wikipedia's notability standards, whether it is the criteria set by the sports-specific notability guidelines, or the general notability guideline.}}
• :Here is my further explanation of that aspect of NSPORT in the AfD: {{tq2|Per NSPORT: {{tq|The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it.}} In other words, the purpose of the SNG is so mass article creators can pad their stats quicker an article may be in mainspace sourced only to refs that verify the subject meets the SNG, such as databases, without the threat of immediate A7 deletion or AfD challenge. Other biographies with such sourcing should very quickly attract scrutiny from NPP/AfC reviewers/general patrolling editors, but if the SportsRef Stamp of Approval is there editors are much less likely to put in the effort to investigate whether the subject actually meets GNG. It also gives editors a bit more leeway with how long they can take to find offline/untranslated/etc. SIGCOV. But once notability is challenged, those who want to retain the article are expected to produce GNG sourcing or provide a very credible claim that SIGCOV exists (like pointing to a specific book that isn't accessible online but would be expected to contain adequate coverage). It seems editors trust GRIDIRON's predictive accuracy enough that NFL players are extremely rare AfD targets, but that doesn't mean they all actually meet GNG.}}
• :This is why the "or" exists in the second sentence. JoelleJay (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• :*There is a Q4 before the Q5 you cite, which explains Q5's "eventually sources must be provided ": {{tq|Q4: What is considered a "reasonable amount of time" to uncover appropriate sources?...Wikipedia editors have been very liberal in allowing for adequate time...|q=yes}}—Bagumba (talk) 08:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Having reviewed the article itself and the excuses why a clear numerical consensus should be overturned as supposedly 'not policy compliant,' I remain unconvinced. {{U|Sandstein}}, I assess your close as failing to comply with half of WP:DGfA:
• "2. Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants."
• "4. When in doubt, don't delete."
• :I don't see any logical way you didn't violate at least one: if you didn't have any doubts about the deletion, then you have disregarded the judgments of the (numerically superior) keep !voters. This is becoming a pattern of behavior inconsistent with deletion policy. While I appreciate your willingness to discuss your reasoning, your repeated failure to accept that consensus can differ and modify your pattern of closing deletion debates in accord with the community's wishes is concerning. Please do better in the future. Jclemens (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• As closer, I remain of the view that the closure was correct. The above comments and the "keep" opinions at AfD would interpret the provision of NGRIDIRON that a player at a certain level is "presumed notable" to read as "is notable". But that is not what the guideline says. If the community had been of the view that any player at a certain level should be included irrespective of whether sources exist, the community would have written the guideline to read "is notable". But instead, they chose to establish only a presumption of notability, which implies that this presumption is rebuttable. And this means, in my view, that a valid argument at AfD must address whether or not that presumption has been rebutted in any individual case in which notability is challenged. That means that a valid "keep" opinion in this AfD would have had to cite sources that establish this player's notability in order to show that the guideline's presumption does hold in this case, rather than merely repeating the presumption. But most "keep" opinions in this AfDs failed to do so. As AfD closer, I am required to give less weight to opinions that do not provide valid arguments in the light of our guidelines and policies, which is what I did here by giving less weight to the (in my view) poorly argued "keep" opinions. Sandstein 07:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

::{{tq|If the community had been of the view that any player at a certain level should be included irrespective of whether sources exist, the community would have written the guideline to read "is notable". But instead, they chose to establish only a presumption of notability, which implies that this presumption is rebuttable.|q=yes}}: That seems to overplay the significance of "presumed" to discount WP:NSPORTS. The close seemed to apply greater weight to WP:GNG arguments, which itself reads: {{tq|A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article ...|q=yes}} Both NSPORTS and GNG are presumptive.—Bagumba (talk) 09:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Watching but I have no opinion for now. Curbon7 (talk) 08:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment (As I !voted, and I try to discourage participant DRV !votes). This is a clearcut example of votes being disregarded because they weren't being backed up by policy. None advocated an IAR position, just that Gridiron was sufficient. NHC is only the case where the pags do not themselves designate a precedence line. Everything else is said better by Sandstein directly above. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

:: My extended comments at the AfD do, in fact, amount to an IAR position. Cbl62 (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• More than 40% of Wikipedia's biographies concern sportspeople, and the reason why our encyclopaedia is awash with sports-related bios is because the sports notability SNGs are crazy inclusive. NGRIDIRON certainly is. But we have other rules that put a duty on sysops to delete biographical articles that aren't impeccably sourced, and rightly so. For these reasons I concur with the decision to delete. We do not have high quality independent sources of biographical information on this person so we can't permit a biography to exist.—S Marshall T/C 09:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

:: Your comments (including "awash" and "crazy") suggest an antisports bias that may be coloring your opinion. As for NGRIDIRON being "crazy inclusive", I respectfully disagree. Unlike cricket, association football, rugby, and other sports, NGRIDIRON is limited to those who played in the top tier and does not include second- and third-tier professional leagues. Indeed, we have tightened NGRIDIRON even further over the past year, eliminating Arena Football League and rejecting a proposal to add World Football League. (A proposal (mine actually) to limit the guideline to those who played at least two games unfortunately failed to reach consensus.) Cbl62 (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

::: As of the time of typing, :Category:English chemists has 243 articles. :Category:English physicists has 261. :Category:English lawyers has 333, and :Category:British Army generals has 2,549 (reflecting, no doubt, the diligent efforts of our sterling military history Wikiproject.) But in sports, :Category:English footballers contains 23,226 articles. :Category:English cricketers contains 13,580. How can this be? Is it because English football is ten thousand times as important as English chemistry? Are we, as a nation, perhaps, five or six times more important for our cricketing accomplishments than our military campaigns? Or could it just possibly be, do you think, that our sports notability guidelines might be ludicrously inclusive?—S Marshall T/C 01:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

:::: What about :Category:English players of American football, which contains just 47 players? Is that, "crazy inclusive"? BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

::::: Yes. It's a microscopically niche sport here with zero following.—S Marshall T/C 01:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

::::::[https://frontofficesports.com/nfl-london-growth/]. That's about 8% that are fairly avid fans if it's right. Not a huge percent, but not nothing either. Hobit (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::::Intriguing. I'll modify my earlier position to say that although we have a microscopically small number of players, teams, or pitches, it seems that some people who reside in England have watched it on late night TV during lockdown.—S Marshall T/C 10:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::::: :-) Hobit (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

::::::::: :-) It'll likely tick back down again as proper football resumes in earnest.—S Marshall T/C 00:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

:::: {{ping|S Marshall}} Again, your comments belie an anti-sports bias. You believe that there should be more articles on chemists and physicists and fewer articles on athletes. That's your subjective value judgment, but your subjective belief is not how encyclopedic notability is determined. Rather, encyclopedic notability (i.e., WP:GNG) is determined by the coverage a person/topic receives. Like it or not, most people prefer to spend their free time reading about athletes (and people who I may consider to be trivial like "influencers") than they do about chemists and physicists. Given how GNG works, coverage determines notability, and public interest determines what gets covered. We do NOT have a notability system under which the "smart" people decide what the "common" people should read or find interesting. Accordingly, it is entirely right, proper, and appropriate that Wikipedia has far more articles on athletes than chemists and physicists. If you believe this system is "crazy" or "ludicrous", then your real quarrel is with how encyclopedic notability is determined. Cbl62 (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

::::: By "belie", I expect you mean "betray". Yes, I do believe that it's wildly disproportionate to have 261 articles about physicists and 23,226 articles about footballers. I wholeheartedly agree with you when you say that encyclopaedic notability should be the standard and the GNG should apply to everyone, and I very much welcome this statement from a pro-sports editor. I do hope this means that you have come agree with me that we should strictly apply the GNG to all sportspeople, and therefore deprecate all the special pleading in NSPORTS and its many sub-guidelines?—S Marshall T/C 14:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

::::::: You expect correctly ... Would you agree that GNG should govern all -- including academics? So how about deprecating NACADEMIC as well? Cbl62 (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::::: Just clicked on you profile and am surprised ... for some reason, I'd always assumed you looked more like Kristen Bell -- Forgetting Sarah Marshall ... a bit disappointing ;) Cbl62 (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

::::::::: Tragically, I'm not a hottie. :-) Yes, the GNG should govern the notability of every topic and particularly every biography of a living person, and yes, I have for years advocated that the GNG should trump SNGs in all cases. I think that if we required two high-quality indepth sources for every article then the encyclopaedia would be a better place. I also think that those websites that reduce to tables of sports results are not acceptable sources for biographies.—S Marshall T/C 16:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse - while I stated my opinion on why it should be kept, which was based solely on WP:NGRIDIRON, GNG does trump SNGs. I understand Sandstein's reasoning, especially in light of {{u|S Marshall}}'s comments above. In past years, simply establishing that something met a particular SNG was good enough, but that's been changing over the past 3 years or so. We've seen it in regards to GEOLAND, NCRIC, NBROADCAST, SCHOOLOUTCOMES and others. One SNG, NSOLDIER, was even deprecated. However, there are other SNGs which continue to trump GNG at AfD discussions, such as NSCHOLAR and NAUTHOR. And it all depends on which Admin does the close, everybody's human, and different folks will reach different conclusions based on the same evidence. But those are broader discussions. Sandstein's close, while I disagree with it, was clearly sound. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• :{{tq|GNG does trump SNGs|q=yes}}: No, it does not automatically, per the top-level guideline Wikipedia:Notability (emphasis added): {{tq|A topic is presumed to merit an article if...It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right...|q=yes}} Similarly, WP:NSPORTS starts with (emphasis added): {{tq|The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below...|q=yes}}; it continues: {{tq|...meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion...|q=yes}} !Voters don't have to blindly keep because an SNG is met, but they can decide whether it makes sense to use the SNG or not.—Bagumba (talk) 07:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

:::WP:NSPORTS#Q5 -- {{tq|The second sentence in the guideline says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline {{underline|or}} the sport specific criteria set forth below." Does this mean that the general notability guideline doesn't have to be met? {{underline|No}}}}. You're cherrypicking or misinterpreting the meaning of your quoted passages.. Avilich (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

:::: Your "No" was actually {{tq|A5: No; as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met...|q=yes}} Please use ellipses. "Eventually" is already discussed at various places in the DRV.—Bagumba (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn like it or not, the longstanding precedent in this topic area is to retain articles that pass the SNG. The consensus at this AfD was consistent with that precedent. I understand that some editors are not happy with the prevalence of sports articles on the 'pedia, but a !supervote is not an appropriate way to spark change. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• :In the last year or so a very strong precedent has been established that athletes meeting a sub-guideline of NSPORT but not GNG are not immune to deletion. AfDs where this has been the case and there has been substantial discussion and the closer reiterated NSPORT's relationship to GNG are spread across football (see closes by Fenix down 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; and by Ritchie333, and Vanamonde), cricket (see closes by Randykitty 1, 2, 3; and by Scottywong, Nosebagbear, Black Kite, Barkeep49, and Dennis Brown), MMA (see closes by Nosebagbear and Daniel), rugby (see close by Seraphimblade), and baseball (see closes by Ritchie333 and David Gerard). At this point the prevailing consensus (as supported by the wording of NSPORT itself as well as a 2017 RfC) is for closers to give little weight to !votes that merely state a subject meets a sport-specific guideline, and sometimes that means a close is against numerical consensus. JoelleJay (talk) 03:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus. If the logic in the close is right, then arguments based on WP:NSPORTS (or, for that matter, most other SNGs) are essentially worthless the minute someone brings up the GNG, and the close doesn't make sense otherwise. This isn't the case and isn't in keeping with the community's view of SNGs. The close is also founded on the view that since nobody has found coverage passing the GNG then we have to assume the subject doesn't pass the GNG, which is incorrect. WP:NSPORTS is intended to indicate when GNG-passing coverage is likely to exist, and arguments based on sources being likely to exist are legitimate. WP:N says If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. The discussion could certainly have decided that sources aren't likely to exist and that the article should be deleted, but I don't think there was a clear consensus on that point, and that's a decision for the participants rather than the closer. Hut 8.5 13:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• I would differ from this. Our verifiability policy says, at WP:BURDEN, that information that's been challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable source. Raising an AFD is a challenge; so per policy, only an inline citation to a reliable source will suffice. My position is that this "presumption" that sources exist cannot withstand such a clear passage in core policy.—S Marshall T/C 13:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• I don't believe there's any verifiability issue here - there doesn't seem to be any claim that the information in the article isn't verifiable to reliable published sources, and it had plenty of inline citations (mostly to contemporary newspapers). The argument for deletion was that there aren't any sources which devote significant coverage to the subject. That's not found in WP:V, it comes from WP:GNG, which isn't core policy. Hut 8.5 17:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• :Cbl62 and to an extent Rlendog and Onel are essentially the only keep participants who explicitly argue SIGCOV sources are still likely to exist (rather than just asserting "meets NGRIDIRON" or "we've never deleted an NFL player before"). So if we only consider !votes that address this point, the consensus is actually numerically on the side of delete (where such (lack of) coverage is noted).
• :I think it's also relevant to point out Geschichte's comment could be interpreted as an argument in favor of deletion, which brings the tally to 8k 5d. JoelleJay (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• ::The point of NSPORTS (including NGRIDIRON) is to indicate when sources are likely to exist, I don't think it's a problem that not all comments spelled this out. Several of the Delete comments didn't explicitly mention SIGCOV either and just referenced the GNG, I don't think that's a problem either. Hut 8.5 19:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn, I appreciate the point that the closing admin made and I do think that there needs to be a bigger discussion on WP:GRIDIRON, but {{U|Hut 8.5}} and others make compelling points that deletion was not applied appropriately in this case. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Hi Gonzo, out of interest, how would you see this as distinct from "deletion was applied correctly, but a discussion should be had as to whether gridiron should be exempt from the NSPORTS norm?" What's the deciding factor (in terms of assessing policy-backed consensus/DRV review)? Nosebagbear (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• {{U|Nosebagbear}}, I think that we are constrained by our current policy and guidelines. So was this deletion applied correctly based on our current policies/guidelines? I don't think so. Should someone have a presumption of notability just because they played in the NFL, especially when they played during the early years of the NFL when it wasn't the same international league it is today. I don't know; I think that discussion should occur. Hope that makes sense. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• {{U|Hut 8.5}} appears to be be arguing that all of NSPORTS is "essentially worthless" -- as it's actually written, I've seen no argument made that the close interpreted it other than that. Just the "precedent" differs (see also: WP:OTHERSTUFF) and that NGRIDIRON is a special case, on the basis that it "only" has 32 teams with 53-person rosters in a single country. (In practice extending even beyond that, as players that have only ever been on an NFL practice are regularly declared to be obviously notable start-class articles.) That's sharply at variance from being "constrained by our current policy and guidelines", as far as I can tell. What's more, it rests on at least two different interpretations of what those guidelines should be, or should be read as being. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• I'm not arguing that NSPORTS is essentially worthless, that's my paraphrase of what the close was saying ("If the logic in the close is right..."). I don't agree with it. Hut 8.5 17:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• The "logic in the close" is literally just the text of what NSPORTS very clearly and specifically says. So either you're arguing for some other interpretation of NSPORTS that's too subtle for me to see (and that you didn't set out), that it should say something else (which you didn't specify), or that we should IAR in this case, and essentially in every case that this clause of NSPORTS applies to. Can you reconcile those in some way? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn - the consensus of the discussion was to keep based on NGRIDIRON's presumption of notability. The closer says that that presumption of notability was "rebutted." It was not. Perhaps in the case of a modern day player if no additional sources were found online one could say that the presumption of notability was rebutted. But for a century old topic, saying that no additional sources were quickly located on the internet is hardly a rebuttal to the presumption that sources existed 90 or 100 years ago. In fact, rebutting the presumption would be virtually impossible, since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And there is no reason that should be a problem, and one reason that NGRIDIRON formed a consensus that players with even one NFL game should be presumed notable. And while I think it is "virtually impossible" to rebut the presumption for a very old player, it is not necessarily impossible - see the case of Lewis (baseball), which rebutted the similar presumption for NBASE. But it is very difficult to rebut such a presumption and should be, and no reason to delete (this isn't even a BLP case) and override NGIRDIRON just because of that. Rlendog (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Then that's where we disagree. In my view, if no appropriate sources can be found in a well-attended 7-day AfD, then there is a more than sufficient likelihood that the sources do not exist and the presumption of notability is rebutted. Otherwise, the presumption would be all but impossible to rebut, and would not be a presumption at all. That would be at odds with our core policy WP:V, which requires us, as pointed out by {{u|S Marshall}} above, to delete content that cannot be verified through reliable sources. Sandstein 16:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Actually, the article was completely verified (with 15+ references), as I stated in my DRV rationale. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, I noted the repeated references to number of bytes and numbers of references. Do any of them amount to WP:SIGCOV? Because if you're claiming the article does meet the GNG, then this entire "NGRIDIRON should trump GNG" discussion is surely at cross-purposes and unnecessary. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• You and S Marshall are confusing verifiability and notability. The article had plenty of citations to third-party reliable sources, as required by WP:V. The argument for deletion was that the subject doesn't have significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. That's based on WP:GNG, and only the GNG. The GNG is not a core policy, it's not even a policy. It may well be your "view" that if sources don't turn up during an AfD then they probably don't exist, but as a closer you aren't imposing your "view" on the discussion. Hut 8.5 17:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• I don't feel confused. I feel as if we're under a duty to base biographies on high-quality independent sources that give sufficient biographical information to write a biographical article, and sources that meet that requirement would always amount to "significant coverage".—S Marshall T/C 19:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• 7 days is hardly enough time to establish that "sources do not exist and the presumption of notability is rebutted." I have found and added sources to less prominent old-time sports figures years after an AfD. Rlendog (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Do you feel that when the guideline page says "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline," that should be read as "Assume they meet GNG unless and until proven otherwise by exhaustive search"? Because if that's the intended reading, it'd be a deuced sight clearer and more helpful to editors for it to say so in terms. (Whether in general for NSPORTS, or as the Wikiproject seems to feel NGRIDIRON is in some way a higher standard and their articles are of greater inherent notability than other top-level professional sports -- specific to NFL and precursors.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn If the claim that the subject meets a SNG, the primary question is to verify that the subject actually meets the GNG (in this case, did the subject play a game in the NFL). As Hut mentioned, the SNGs provide a presumption of notability. That all said, if there is concern that the SNG does not work, that not all subjects in the class receive significant coverage, then we ought to reopen (to tighten up) the SNG. I think the closer did not properly apply the SNG to this case. --Enos733 (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Striking my original bolded comment. After reading the endorse position here, I am a bit more convinced that the closer had discretion to close as 'delete.' I do think that there should be a broader discussion of whether the presumption of meeting GNG exists with "one game" at the professional level does exist in many sports prior to (a particular date). However, that discussion is not appropriate within any specific AfD. --Enos733 (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• It's a presumption, not an assertion. It doesn't say "trust us, these will all pass GNG", it says they must separately and additionally pass GNG. Several editors seem to believe that lots of NSPORTS-threshold-passing subjects are indeed non-notable -- but not the ones from their sport, of course, it's all the others that're causing the problem! I think the question is -- and what the guideline fails to set out -- is how this "presumption" should be operationalised. Does it shift the threshold of notability as to be determined by GNG? Does it keep the notability requirement the same, but provide a "stay of execution" on the article from deletion while those required additional sources are sought? Does it void its own text and make this presumed notability operationally permanent, with GNG never having to be met at all? The arguments here seem to interpret it wildly differently which I think argues for a more specific wording indicating which of the above -- or other possibilities entirely -- is intended to be followed. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment. A couple things I want to note. A) NSPORT explicitly mentions in at least three places that it does not confer notability directly and that GNG must be met. B) In my opinion, the argument that SIGCOV might exist somewhere was sufficiently rebutted. I should preface this by saying there are cases where non-SIGCOV material is discovered during AfD that I consider reasonable enough evidence for the existence of offline SIGCOV to strike or switch my !vote. But in the case of Vainowski I sincerely do not think an encyclopedic biography is possible. For one, the bulk of the article was this paragraph: {{tq2|A player identified by the name "Vainowski" or "Vanowski" also played line positions for other professional football teams in Illinois from 1923 through the early 1930s, including the following appearances:

"Vainowski", identified as a 238-pound tackle out of Loyola, again played for Chicago's Pullman Panthers in 1931.}} No one besides a wikipedia editor has made a connection between these Vainowskis and our Pete; they're probably the same person but Struck since an updated version of the article had verified these were the same people the mentions are so brief (trivial, even) that, on top of being original research, their DUEness is also questionable. Even worse, there were just two sources that had a full name: two small local obits (submitted by the family) from the 1950s that describe his career at a telephone company but don't even mention he played football. Either this was a different Pete S Vainowski, or Vainowski/his family did not consider his time in the NFL important enough for even a single clause in his obituary. Then there's the fact that someone wrote in to a newspaper in ~1935 asking about his team's composition in 1926 and a journalist who was seemingly in contact with the team's manager said there wasn't any further info on players that season because the manager admitted he kept poor records. Keep in mind newspapers curated thousands of clippings from other newspapers on specific topics, so if more details existed on that team's entire season in contemporary reports it's very likely they would have found something in their archives. They did not, and from that I believe we can reasonably assume significant or even trivial coverage does not exist for all individual NFL players in this time period. JoelleJay (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

:{{ping|Curbon7|Curbon7|Enos733|Hut 8.5|Gonzo fan2007|Jclemens|Lepricavark|Metropolitan90}} JoelleJay (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

:: Actually that paragraph you listed as the "bulk of the article" was not in the page at the time of deletion, as I completely re-wrote the article when Pro-Football-Reference verified them as the same person. Also, I think your statement of "I believe we can reasonably assume significant or even trivial coverage does not exist for all individual NFL players in this time period." is absolute nonsense. For example, the other day, I randomly picked a few 1920s one-gamers (you're saying all!?) to make an article of, Karl Thielscher, Shirley Brick, Carl Etelman, Ching Hammill, and got each of them in to excellent shape (and two at DYK). BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

::: Also, the 1926 Louisville Colonels season was covered in-depth, as a Newspapers.com search in 1926 of "Louisville Colonels" brings up... 24,900 results (see [https://www.newspapers.com/search/#query=Louisville+Colonels&dr_year=1926-1926]). BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

:::I did not say no NFL players in this time had SIGCOV. I said we can't assume it exists for all of them. And in my opinion biographies should consist mainly of material that is encyclopedic -- info should adhere to WP:NOT and WP:DUE and not contain every single detail that can be found on a person. If the only or even primary info that can be found comes from contemporary news articles reporting routine events, especially stuff that's only reported by one outlet, then the topic runs afoul of WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:NOTNEWS. I haven't seen a single source for Vainowski that goes beyond even trivial coverage in game recaps. JoelleJay (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

:::I amended my comment to reflect his being linked to each of those teams. Not that those additions were more than passing mentions anyway. JoelleJay (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

::{{U|JoelleJay}}, is there a specific purpose of your ping? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

:Also, with regards to this specific close: in the last year there have been dozens (hundreds?) of deletions of athletes who met an NSPORT SSG but not GNG/NSPORT itself and had a numerically close enough !vote differential that the closer left a remark explicitly referencing (participants' arguments on) NSPORT's relationship to GNG. This has been across a wide array of professional sports with numerous different closing admins. So Sandstein's close is not at all out of the ordinary, nor is his interpretation of the PAGs idiosyncratic. JoelleJay (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse. A "presumption of notability" is just that -- a presumption. It does not mean anyone who meets the criteria is automatically notable. To quote WP:NSPORT, "meeting of any of these [sport-specific] criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." In this case, there are apparently no sources to establish this individual's notability, so it should be deleted. Calidum 19:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment for those interested in seeing the last version of the article before deletion: User:Gonzo fan2007/Pete Vainowski. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse per above, sports SNGs provide a presumption of notability that can be defeated through AFD. That is what happened here. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn. Sourcing was quality and a consensus to keep was evident. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 20:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

::Which sources provided even WP:BASIC coverage? JoelleJay (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Can we have a temp. undelete please? The article and its sources are relevant to the AfD and some of the points raised at DRV. Hobit (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• {{replyto|Hobit}} A user has linked the last version prior to deletion just above. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Thank you. Hobit (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn Admittedly I'm biased, but I feel like the keep arguments were solid. Enough was available about Vainowski that a decent article could be written, certainly not a substub. I was actually considering opening this DRV soon anyay. Sandstein's close was a SUPERVOTE. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Not according to WP:SUPERVOTE it's not. "It should be noted that consensus discussions (including XfDs and RfCs) are not really polls. For example, if an XfD discussion has more "keeps" than "deletes" but the "deletes" are grounded in policy and the "keeps" are of the WP:ILIKEIT variety (or conversely if the deletes say WP:ITSCRUFT and the "keeps" are grounded in policy), it's not a "supervote" to close in accordance with a significant minority opinion." 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Sources aren't great, but well past WP:V. I don't see how a consensus can be found for deletion in that discussion. overturn to NC. Hobit (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• I can see the sources offered verify the statements made. But Verifiability also entails notability, which explicitly gets us right back to WP:GNG. Do you feel it meets that standard? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• No, WP:V and WP:N are quite different. I'm not sure what point you're making. Hobit (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• You are right that they're different but that's actually an issue - an article can have statements that are all verifiable without actually managing to make the article notable. Verifiability is necessary, but not sufficient. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Quote from WP:V: "Notability; Further information: Wikipedia:Notability; If no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it (i.e., the topic is not notable)." Hence the explicit policy basis for deletion, even if all the contents are cited (with below notability-threshold sources, as here). 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, WP:V references WP:N, but they are still different. "Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations". This article, when deleted, met that bar. Hobit (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• It met the bar of that portion of WP:V, sure. But what about the part that I quoted? Is that merely a "reference" to WP:N (and hence to the GNG), and not a clear statement in policy that it must satisfy that too? It too is exceptionally poorly written, if that's the meaning we're to take from it! Do you feel that this article in fact meets GNG, or establishes notability by some other route? Or that the AfD debate (or this one) established a "consensus" to ignore that? Because that's not really in line with our policy on what "consensus" means, either. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• I think that at the core of this debate, there's a basic logical issue. NSPORTS and its many sub-guidelines create a "presumption" that sources exist. Any "presumption" is inherently rebuttable, right? If it isn't rebuttable, then it is not, in any meaningful sense, a presumption. So how can it be rebutted? In other words, is it up to the "keep" side to produce the decent sources that they claim must exist, or is it up to the "delete" side to prove that decent sources don't exist? And if so, how can they do that?—S Marshall T/C 10:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• To me there are three issues. #1 Is it likely, with something this old, that paper sources exist? The answer is "probably". #2 Do I personally think we should have this article? I'd lean toward yes because I see no harm (not a BLP or otherwise likely to cause problems) and I think Wikipedia should generally cover older things when we can. #3 and most importantly, can local consensus override a broader one? And that's a clear yes IMO. That's the whole point of WP:IAR. Numbers do matter and here the local consensus was clearly going one way. If that many people said "keep, IAR" compared to "delete, WP:N" I'd say we'd be at NC. I don't think we are less than NC now. But my bar for where IAR kicks in is generally lower than most. YMMV. Hobit (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• #1 WP:MUSTBESOURCES. #2 WP:NOHARM. #3 WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Alvaldi (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• I think WP:CLOSEAFD (second bullet) is probably the stronger argument than your links. But all that said, the whole point of WP:IAR is that sometimes the rules are wrong. Are they wrong here? I'd say this is a type of article we should have. NOHARM is really the center of inclusionism vs deletionism (as the link states). I personally think this type of article is fine--every single point is verified and I'm not worried about spam or BLP issues creeping into it. But I agree with you my view is in the minority. Hobit (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• I think the harm done is to further ratchet the "other stuff" process of ad hoc inclusion. There's about a thousand more where that came from from the NFL alone, and if other sports disagree with the NFL Wikiproject's thesis that they're an especially rigorous special case, replicate that for any or all of the others. If it's desired to get to the point where NSPORT (or some subset) is sufficient in itself (perhaps with a dash of trivial mentions in verifiable sources) for inclusion, better to say so explicitly, rather than having a swiss cheese of special pleading. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• I'd be happy if we tried to do something like that for pre-WWII biographies (not just sports), recognizing that folks who did the same things now as then see a lot more coverage. Just as we often raise the bar GNG for people who don't meet the SNG (college athletes for example commonly need to meet a higher standard than just two sources about them), I'd like to see us lower the bar for older (pre WWII) BIOs that meet the SNG. Hobit (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Seems a little ad hoc to me. Does that period suffer from a huge amount of lost sources, or were those people just less "inherently" notable in their day, and are merely being seen otherwise through a zeal in hindsight about a multi-$billion industry? Hard to determine that objectively, especially by way of a cutoff date. But I'd rather see something on those lines than swiss-cheese exceptions. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• :The only possible argument I can see for IAR is that an encyclopedia "should" have a standalone article on every single NFL player; that having this unlinked name in a season's roster is specifically damaging our coverage of the topic. We certainly can't make the argument that the trivial mentions currently in the article are of encyclopedic value, else we'd allow standalones for everyone ever listed on a sports page. And it's hard to see how IAR could be applied on the basis that coverage "probably does exist" when even local papers barely ever list his first initial and his own obituary doesn't mention playing football; moreover, at what point would anyone agree that SIGCOV doesn't exist or that enough time has passed that editors "should" have found sources by now? So we're left with the completionist argument that having a standalone for every NFL player provides more benefit than its subverting WP:NOT causes harm. In which case I would argue, why NFL players and not any other group of people who may have a few members that don't meet GNG? Why should this exception be more attainable for athletes (by virtue of NSPORT's "presumptions") than for artists or musicians or politicians, who have to demonstrate GNG from the start and don't get extra time to add refs? JoelleJay (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse WP:NSPORT, which NGRIDIRON is a sub-guideline of, makes it very clear that all articles must provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Nobody has been able to provide these sources. How is he a notable person if nobody took note? Alvaldi (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse an absolutely correct application of policy and of the long-standing consensus on how notability policies apply in practice. WP:NRVE, and if the keep !votes did not present such sources (or much more besides what appears special pleading), then they can safely be discounted: even NSPORTS explicitly states that {{tq|Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept.}}. I'll also note that policy and guidelines are not unbreakable laws, and that the spirit and the principle (in this case, that there should be proper sources to write an actual article which meets V, NPOV and NOR, and not just database entries) are very much more important and convincing than the legalistic interpretation of NGRIDIRON (which, as the closer correctly indicated, is but a rebuttable presumption) made by some of those arguing for overturning. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist - If a majority of participants are appealing to an SNG that explictly defers to the GNG in the false belief that this contradicts the GNG, this doesn't mean they can simply be disregarded. On the contrary, they may typically be implicitly making the argument that some coverage on the topic is appropriate, as {{u|Cbl62}} explicitly did "it still represents legitimate and valuable encyclopedic content IMO". The delete side had a stronger argument than keep, but there was certainly no consensus to delete. While this does put the closer in a difficult position, {{u|Sandstein}} was not without alternatives: he could have made this point in a comment and extended the AfD, for example. An extended AfD could be looking for an ATD or to see whether a presentation of the policy facts sways heads. As it stands, I find this close undemocratic.

:Note, it has been opined that the GNG always trumps SNGs. This is not always the case: WP:NPROF is an exception. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

::But it does trump them in WP:NSPORT. Alvaldi (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

::*I deliberately phrased my argument so as not to challenge the interpretation that Sandstein & S Marshall have given to the relation between GNG and NSPORT, but the idea that the latter "trumps" the former is, at best, an oversimplification. What's the point of establishing a presumption that sources exist if the actual challenge to provide sources takes the exact same form as if this presumption was not made? Several people in the AfD said that it is quite likely that print sources exist that are not freely available online. — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

:::* "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline." If an article passes NSPORT, but not GNG, it doesn't qualify for inclusion. If it passes GNG, not not NSPORT, it does. I'm not sure what interpretation you might put on "trumping" that differs from that, or how you feel the above might otherwise be an oversimplification, but that seems pretty clear to me, from the text of that guideline alone. Whether that makes it "pointless" is a legitimate question to ask generally, but it seems problematic to leap from there to simply ignoring what it actually does say. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

::::*I'll reiterate that the argument you are making has nothing to do with the rationale for my 'overturn' opinion, which supposes that Sandstein's contentions about the relation between NSPORT and the GNG are correct. As for it being an oversimplification, note that WP:NSPORT/FAQ has a full five questions exploring the relation between NSPORT and the GNG. — Charles Stewart (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::* Those five full questions supporting and reinforcing the "also needs to pass GNG" point, so I don't see how that supports your "oversimplification" characterisation. If you do accept these "contentions" (i.e., straightforward summary of the content of the guideline) are correct, I in turn don't see how you get to your "overturn" rationale, other than by observing that it could have been relisted. Closers are enjoined "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." I don't see wherein the closer acted less "democratically" than the required standard, and surely they'd have erred in acting more "democratically". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

::::::*Since it is irrelevant to the case I made, let's agree to disagree about the 'oversimplification' bit. Since we read the FAQ so differently, I am not too bothered by your failure to understand my argument and won't attempt to clarify if noone else asks. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::::* That's quite the take on "agreeing to disagree" you have, there. To be more direct then, your "oversimpificatioon" contention is clearly as erroneous as you now concede it is irrelevant, and your "argument" stands on presupposing that people might have intended to make arguments that they did not, and which are unsound and insufficient in any event, and just should be just-count-the-votes'd as if they had made valid ones. That's expressly contrary to the advice offered to closers, for the very good reason that it makes nonsense of the idea that consensus and vote-counting in any way differ. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

::I don't really see how the participants could've been unaware that NSPORT itself states it does not override GNG. Geschichte made a comment very early on stating as much, and Nosebagbear and/or I directly replied to Metropolitan90, Curbon7, Lepricavark, Oaktree b, and Eddy with detailed explanations of how NSPORT works. BeanieFan11 and Cbl62 are athlete AfD regulars who definitely know both the NSPORT/GNG relationship and that straight "Keep meets [SSG]" !votes are now frequently disregarded by closers. I think anyone who wasn't aware of the guideline or the very strong trend in deleting athletes who don't meet GNG, but who is then personally informed of it, should at least respond with a defense of their position, support their arguments in a different way, or amend their !vote if they want their participation to carry much weight. If they don't, their !votes are just straight-up ignoring a PAG without any explanation and definitely should not be given the same closing consideration as those that do address it. JoelleJay (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

::*I agree that the AfD discussion was problematic, and was at odds with how NSPORTS is currently formulated. There are mechanisms for admins to try and guide an AfD that they think has gone wrong. But simply throwing out the majority of !votes because the closer disagrees with the interpretation of policy and the appeals to IAR is undemocratic. I don't like attacking Sandstein in this way as I think he is one of our best closers, but this close was not the exercise in giving extra weight to better arguments that I routinely endorse at DRV but something else that I am displeased to see. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse in this instance the closer has it correct. NGRIDIRON establishes a rebuttable presumption of notability, and the arguments have successfully rebutted it. I endorse the deletion on this narrow basis. In the general case, SNG/GNG is either/or, otherwise SNGs would be otiose. ("A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy." – Wikipedia:Notability; my emphasis) Stifle (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn to No Consensus, for at least two reasons:
• The closer discounted the Keep statements because they did not address GNG, but the Keep editors may not have been aware that the closer would be imposing strict compliance with GNG, so the closer should have Relisted to allow the Keep editors time to find the sources that are presumed to exist. While the closer intended to be following the letter of the law, the closer was imposing a standard on the Keep editors that they were not aware of. A Relist would deal with this concern.
• I have what is probably a minority view that Special Notability Guides should be an alternative to general notability, and that Special Notability Guides are clearer and easier to use than general notability and should be used, not discounted. If the English Wikipedia has 40% sportspeople, perhaps it is because sports have more clearly defined and so better sports notability guidelines than other areas of notability. (Musical notability guidelines are also good because they are clear, and minimize the searching for sources that establish general notability.
• This is an excellent example of why sports notability guidelines should speak for themselves without requiring a search for old sources.
• The emphasis on the vague guideline of general notability encourages paid editors and promoters to cram articles and drafts with passing mentions.
• The editors who said Keep may not have known that the closer would be requiring general notability, and either a No Consensus or a Relist is in order.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Minimizing the searching for sources really isn't a good thing, Robert.—S Marshall T/C 16:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment to User:S Marshall - I didn't recommend minimizing the search for sources. In particular, an article can be tagged as needing better sources. I said that the sports notability should not require a search for old sources. The other point that I made wasn't about sports. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oh, I'm sorry. In that case I've failed to understand what you meant by {{tq|Musical notability guidelines are also good because they are clear, and minimize the searching for sources that establish general notability.}} Could you clarify?—S Marshall T/C 17:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
• There were several mentions of GNG in the AfD discussion. There was even some engagement from "keep" !voters, one acknowledging that GNG needed to be met and at present wasn't, but evidently hoping to get there in... another year, maybe? Another insisted it was in "great shape". It seems odd to say that participants would be "not aware" a guideline would be applied, after several people pointing out what it says, and arguing very clearly that it should be. I respect the view that the SNGs should be other than they are, but I don't see why that's an argument for not following them unless and until such time as they're changed. The article is replete with "passing mention" citations of the sort you appear to find problematic, so I don't follow your reasoning there. The issue is with a lack of WP:SIGCOV. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

:::*And if the AfD is relisted, you'll have a chance to refine this argument. The fact is that most of your description of the AfD applies to before the first extension and still a majority of the opinions in the extension period were keep. The argument was made, didn't persuade regular AfD participants, but did persuade Sandstein to effect a dramatic overriding of the majority opinion at AfD. I think this kind of way of making decisions is bad for Wikipedia. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

::::* If any degree of consistency of application of policy and guidelines occurs, I won't need to avail of such a chance (nor do I think any "refinement" is required, come to that, though no doubt this is due to my being unaware of its crude nature). While there's an obvious danger if closers start to simply "supervote" to override finely balanced arguments in line with their own preference, the IMO far more acute one is if supposedly established principles like notability are blithely ignored by the "majority", and that's to be considered binding on the closer. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I have probably seen in my 16 years here at ;east 3 or 4 reversals of the role of SPORTSN. I take that to mean there is no lasting agreement, and that therefore any argument based of the fundamental purpose of WP as expressed in WP:FIVE is relevant. Even the most general principle, that we should include what readers would expect us to include, fails in his field, as readers clearly expect very different things. This is a difficult subject for me to consider, asI personally have very little interest, but I accept that most of the world, has a very great interest. The only thing consistent in this area is that all attempts at compromise guidelines have consistently failed. I fall back on my general feeling, that it doesn't matter if WP covers extensively fields I do not care about, as long as it is willing to be equally tolerant of the fields where I do. I therefore focus my arguments on increasing coverage on the areas where I think we need to be inclusive. If other fields think similarly, alll I ask is mutual forbearance. DGG ( talk ) 10:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse - Clearly there's a degree of incredulity from the Gridiron guys, who seem to be quite an active lobby group. Much like their transatlantic cousins at WP:FOOTBALL they seem to have their own in-house WP:ARS and a WP:SNG they've carefully crafted to try and cocoon certain favoured groups of players. And in reality this was quite a courageous AfD close (shouldn't have been, perhaps). I'm an inclusionist by temperament and it's a shame to lose articles like this - in a way these editors are almost a victim of their own success because they've found themselves straying into WP:OR territory. But the logic of the closure was sound - the deletion arguments were stronger because WP:GNG wasn't met. Anyone with any experience of AfD will know the usual pattern: sources are offered up and then the 'other side' pretend they're deficient in some novel way. That's the sort of tedious game which will usually fizzle out into a no consensus, unless there's a bad/partisan closure (which quite often happens with soccer AfDs). The tragedy for the Gridiron guys here was that they didn't really come up with anything in terms of WP:SIGCOV. So they didn't even address, let alone answer, the argument about failing WP:GNG. On this evidence they still haven't. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
• {{u|Bring back Daz Sampson}}, While I agree with your points for endorsement, your first two sentences are absolutely outrageous statements, and I'm surprised it wasn't called out sooner. ARS is a completely separate issue from this, and especially considering that WT:WikiProject American football has no mention of this AfD or DR, the majority of the people who are voting keep/overturn likely are not from there. Secondly, the SNG in question is part of an official guideline, not some perfunctory essay. With respect, and I seriously mean no insult by this because you're a great editor, the idea that an official guideline is in any way crafted out of some sort of deceit is absolutely stupid. Every guideline on WP:NSPORT I'm sure was carefully toiled over by dozens of regular editors and administrators. Curbon7 (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn (uninvolved) while WP:NSPORTS notes that the guideline is ultimately a recommendation that defers to WP:GNG, this isn't really the case and doesn't make sense as such. After all, WP:GNG is also just a guideline and not policy. Editors in the discussion weighed the specifics of NSPORTS heavier than GNG, which is reasonable to do as they are both just guidelines, and I don't think the closing admin made the right decision in ignoring that. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• :{{tq|this isn't really the case and doesn't make sense as such.}} Can you explain what you mean by this? JoelleJay (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse A presumption is just that, a presumption until someone goes and actually looks for it. It is not a 'get out of deletion forever' argument. Since most of the keeps at that AFD lacked actual policy & guideline based arguments, they have zero weight. The way you counter an article nominated for AFD due to a lack of reliable sourcing, is to actually find reliable sourcing, not argue 'there probably are sources somewhere'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• There were 17 reliable sources in the article... BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• :You know they meant SIGCOV sources and not trivial mentions. JoelleJay (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• :Actually, no, I didn't. And tell me this: Why, as an encyclopedia, would we not want to have a high-quality article on someone who meets our criteria of inclusion? Because Vainowski is just that, it was in excellent shape and meets the criteria of inclusion (NGRIDIRON). I do not see his deletion improving the encyclopedia and in addition to many other reasons stated in my nomination, believe we can follow WP:Ignore all rules on this, which states: {{tq|If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.}} BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• ::...High quality? I'm sorry, but the exact same amount and depth of material could be cobbled together for an article on just about any American high school athlete, or even really anyone with an obituary, many of whom would have far more coverage. So is his one NFL game, about which we know zilch regarding his performance, enough to make up for his biography having literally nothing else more remarkable or worthy of note than any amateur sportsperson? Why have BIO1E at all if we still keep someone who never even received SIGCOV for the one event he could have been notable for? And come on, the only reason you're defending this article at all is because you want a standalone for every NFL player, regardless of whether they have coverage, so at least address how Wikipedia is improved by having this one list (NFL players) only contain blue links. JoelleJay (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

:::*The mentions were not SIGCOV but they were not trivial either. In this case, our ATD policy is practically begging us to look for an alternative to keep/delete. The failure of the endorse camp to see there as being a content question here that goes beyond application of our notability policies is just as bad as the failure of the overturn to keep camp to wrestle with the sourcing failures of the article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

::::*I have been arguing for quite a while that statistics entries like this should be done as lists of players. If your source is basically no more than a row of an excel spreadsheet, don't inflate each row into a separate article. Reyk _YO! 20:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::*I'm not arguing for a separate article. What you describe would be consistent with a merge/redirect outcome to an AfD. I'm arguing for a relist, on the basis that Sandstein's close was unsound. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

::::::* As I understand it there's something of a state of flux in the possible targets for such, given that editors have expressed unhappiness about redirection to "team" articles, and a possible alternative in this case is up for deletion too. So while that's not a wildly unreasonable outcome, overturning, relisting, arguing in favour of m/r, and then coming up with one seems like a surfeit of process to get there. Seems more practicable to just recreate as a redirect as and when. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse per Only In Death. People look at the words "rebuttable presumption of notability" and, through some trick of eyesight or psychology, read "permanent unappealable exemption from WP:V and WP:N, and an automatic entitlement to a shrine". A presumption that there must be sources out there somewhere no longer applies when people have gone and looked for sources and found none. We expect biographies to contain biographical information, not just statistics. If the sources aren't there to support article content then we should not have a stand-alone article. The delete !voters got this one right, as did the closing administrator. Reyk _YO! 01:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse - The key missing element in the argument from those requesting this be overturned is that NGRIDIRON/NSPORTS's SNGs don't outweigh the GNG; specifically, the reason the NSPORT SNGs exist is stated quite clearly in the "nutshell": {{tq|An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor, as listed on this page, and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.}} (emphasis added) This point — that the only reason this SNG exists is that it presumes if a subject meets it, they will have enough coverage to pass GNG — is quite clearly also stated in the first line of the guideline: {{tq|This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia.}} (emphasis added)
  
  If there were any further question as to whether there needs to be enough sources to pass GNG for an athletic biography to be kept, that is fully answered by the lower paragraph WP:SPORTCRIT: {{tq|A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have participated in or achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level.}} (emphasis added) - Nowhere in these guidelines is the standard for notability changed, indeed the community standard is listed directly in the first sentence of WP:SPORTCRIT. WP:NGRIDIRON does not override this, nor does it supplant the definition of notability... it merely is supposed to indicate a person is "likely" to have enough sources about them to meet WP:BASIC.
  
  In this case, as the closing administrator noted, there was no evidence presented during the discussion (by those requesting retention of the article) showing GNG/BASIC had been met. Some comments above stating those participating in the discussion weren't aware in-depth sources were required (because they were merely reading NSPORTS), and therefore a relist is necessary, I find a touch disingenuous. The requirement for significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources is listed directly in NSPORTS (as I've noted), so all editors quoting the guideline should be aware of those critical parts. If it's impossible for experienced researchers (as most Wikipedia editors at AFD are) to find the proper sources in 14+ days, I think it is entirely safe to presume that the necessary sources don't exist. - Therefore, I entirely endorse the closing administrator's decision as within reasonable administrative discretion. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse The delete voters noted that, according to the SNG itself, GNG must be met, but just about every keep voter (with the possible exception of Onel5969 at the end) ignored this and implied that the mere presumption outlined in the SNG itself was enough. Since the former argued that the sources do not meet GNG, while the latter's arguments were based on SNG only, the consensus of the discussion was that the topic fails GNG. Therefore, a non-keep close was correct. Avilich (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

{{ctop|All mentions of Vainowski}}

[https://www.profootballarchives.com/playerv/vain00200.html 1]. Database listing.

[https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/V/VainPe20.htm 2]. Database listing.

[https://www.newspapers.com/clip/90287611/1926-louisville-pros/ 3]. {{tq|Peter S. Vainowski}}. Listed on the 1926 roster.

[https://www.newspapers.com/clip/90311838/the-rock-island-argus/ 4]. {{tq|This came about when Norton was dropped in his tracks by Vanowski back of the Moline goal.}} Trivial mention in a routine game report.

[https://www.profootballarchives.com/1923rocg.html 5]. Database listing of 1923 Gophers games, no mention of Vainowski.

[https://www.newspapers.com/clip/90311172/chicago-tribune/ 6]. {{tq|L. G. Vainowski}}. Listed in the lineup of a routine game report.

[https://www.newspapers.com/clip/90312884/pullman-beats-moline-indians/ 7]. {{tq|Other shining lights of the Pullman squad were McFadden, fighting quarterback, and Vanowski, guard.}} Trivial mention in a routine game report.

[https://www.profootballarchives.com/1924chicp.html 8]. Database listing of 1924 Pullman Panthers games, no mention of Vainowski.

[https://www.newspapers.com/clip/90310880/pro-football/ 9]. {{tq|Vanowski at tackle.}} Trivial mention in a routine game report.

[https://www.newspapers.com/clip/90295460/the-courier-journal/ 10]. {{tq|R. G. Vanioski}} and {{tq|Slagle for Vanioski.}} Trivial mentions in lineup and sub lists in a routine report on the game he is supposed to be notable for.

[https://www.newspapers.com/clip/90311507/colonials-battle-pullman-to-6-6-tie/ 11]. {{tq|Right Guard Vainowski}} Trivial mention in the lineup of a routine game report.

[https://www.newspapers.com/clip/90312312/gunners-to-use-senn/ 12]. {{tq|...the Panther reserve list includes ... Vainowski, tackle from Loyola, 238.}} Trivial mention in the lineup of a game announcement.

[https://www.newspapers.com/clip/90312011/cardinals-pullmans/ 13]. {{tq|R. T. Vainowski}} and {{tq|Bunis for Vainowski.}} Trivial mentions in the lineup and sub list of a routine game report.

[https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/V/VainPe20.htm 14]. Database listing.

[https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/2238/?name=%20Vainowski&name%20x=%201 15]. Database listing (and WP:OR).

[https://www.newspapers.com/clip/90287108/obituary-for-peter-s-vainowski-aged/ 16]. {{tq|Peter S. Vainowski. Mass for Peter S. Vainowski, 54, of 7010 S. Campbell av., an Illinois Bell Telephone company employee for 34 years, will be said at 10:30 a. m. Saturday in St. Adrian's church, 7000 S. Washtenaw av. He died Tuesday in Billings hospiltal [sic]. Surviving are his widow, Agnes; two sons, Robert, a Tribune classified advertising department employe [sic] and Gregory; a daughter, Mrs. Diane Gorski; his mother, Mrs. Mary Vainauskas, and a sister.}} Routine obituary in the Tribune that gives as much detail on the professional career of his son (a Tribune employee) as it does on his.

[https://www.newspapers.com/clip/90313530/vainowski/ 17]. {{tq|Vainowski—Peter S. Vainowski, aged 54, July 16, 1957, beloved husband of Agnes, nee Grenda; fond father of Diane Gorski, Robert and Gregory; dear son of Mary Vainauskas; brother of Mary Kareiva; father-in-law of Gerald and Linda. Member of Royal Arcanum Oakwood council, No. 805. Employee of Illinois Bell Telephone company for 34 years. Resting at funeral home, 6845 S. Western avenue. Funeral Saturday, July 20, at 10 a. m., to St. Adrian's church. Solemn requiem high mass at 10:30 a. m. Interment St. Casimir's cemetery. Information, REpublic [sic] 7-8600.}} Routine obituary announcement.

{{cbot}}

Excluding database listings, but including all mentions in newspapers, there are a total of 228 words on Vainowski, of which 167 are from his obituaries (not independent), 24 are literally just his name and position in lineups/sub lists (and this includes the person he subbed for), and just 37 (spread over three newspaper articles) have at least a clause of attached text: 1. {{tq|This came about when Norton was dropped in his tracks by Vanowski back of the Moline goal.}} 2. {{tq|Other shining lights of the Pullman squad were ... Vanowski, guard.}} 3. {{tq|...the Panther reserve list includes ... Vainowski, tackle from Loyola, 238.}}

So please, can someone explain why we should IAR for this one NFL player based on just 37 independent words in prose? Why does this guy deserve a standalone biography when the coverage of him in what made him "notable" amounts to {{tq|R. G. Vanioski}} and {{tq|Slagle for Vanioski}}? Why should we forestall deletion of a gridiron athlete based on the presumption there are more sources out there when the above list is the result of 14 days of intensive subscription-based source searching by seasoned editors who focus on historic gridiron athlete biographies? JoelleJay (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse I've stayed out of this DR thus far, but I guess I need to throw my hat in the ring. As one of the people who voted keep in the original AfD, I am now inclined to endorse the decision to delete. In fairness, a lot of the confusion regarding the relationship between SNG and GNG is that it varies dramatically between different criteria groups. For example, with WP:NPOL, GNG literally does not matter so long as there's a source that states the person meets that criteria; on the contrary, as this discussion and the hundreds on NFOOTY before have proved, passing the SNG here is not the end-all-be-all. In the case for WP:NSPORT as I've come to think of it, the SNGs are a like an exponential curve like this: [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:E-kurve.PNG], with t being games played and N(t) being probability of meeting GNG. Meaning: the more games a player has, the more statistically likely they are to meeting GNG, even if the sources aren't easily found, so we can tend to give those more leeway. However, in cases like this one, where the player only played for a single or a handful of games, it is very statistically unlikely for them to have any sources that confer GNG (that's not even getting into the weeks of very thorough source searching and analysis that came up empty, simply the statistical likelihoods). {{u|JoelleJay}} rightfully kicked my butt in that AfD, and I now find myself agreeing with her very strong arguments. Curbon7 (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn (uninvolved) to keep. The close stated that it weighed WP:GNG arguments more than WP:NSPORTS because the latter guideline says people are "presumed notable". However, GNG is also based on a presumption: {{tq|A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article...|q=yes}} WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS allows closers to discount arguments if core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) are violated, but none of those are a factor in this AfD.
  This AfD is basically an argument of GNG vs NSPORTS, both presumptive guidelines. AfDs have been closed against keeping, even when NSPORTS is met e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jones (third baseman), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smith (baseball). However, those participants explicitly !voted that GNG was not met, outnumbering SNG keepers, and the close was not by discounting guideline-based !votes at the close.
  Moreover, some of the NSPORTS keep's did address GNG, saying that offline sources likely exist: {{tq|SNGs are particularly useful for cases like this, where the subject is almost 100 years old and most contemporary sources are unavailable.|q=yes}} ({{u|Rlendog}}), {{tq|SNGs are basically custom-made for historical bios such as this, whereupon we presume that sources exist in some offline form if the criteria is passed|q=yes}} ({{u|Curbon7}}), {{tq|while online sources are not there, I think this is a perfect example of an SNG working, since he does meet WP:GRIDIRON|q=yes}} ({{u|Onel5969}}). This is echoed at Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ#Q4: "What is considered a "reasonable amount of time" to uncover appropriate sources?"
  Considering this person played in the 1930s, sources are more likely offline, if they exist. As such, we should in good faith be following the guideline WP:FAILN, placing notability tags on the article and engaging subject matter experts before resorting to AfD, especially for a non-contemporary subject. No prejudice to opening another AfD if those steps are followed and no new sources have been found after some sufficient time.—Bagumba (talk) 10:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

::No it's not GNG vs. NSPORTS. Not only does the latter explicitly mandate the former, but using one rule against the other without good reason is gaming the system. For that reason, it doesn't matter that GNG also uses the word "presumption". Consensus was that the topic fails GNG. This in turn invalidates SNG. Also, saying that "sources likely exist" is another way of saying that they don't exist for the purposes of the discussion; all your three comments essentially admit that there are no sources that would demonstrate notability. Avilich (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

:::{{tq|No it's not GNG vs. NSPORTS. Not only does the latter explicitly mandate the former...|q=yes}}: Please kindly quote where this "mandate" is specified. What NSPORTS does say: {{tq|Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline...|q=yes}} Also, the guideline WP:N reads: {{tq|A topic is presumed to merit an article if...It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right...|q=yes}}—Bagumba (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

::::Sure. {{tq|the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline.}} {{Diff

:::::"should meet" ≠ a "mandate", that would be must. !Voters can decide whether GNG should trump the bright-line guidance on a per case basis (also per WP:N). The numerical count was roughly 8–3 in favor of the SNG here. There's no valid basis in this case to discount !votes and not {{tq|respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants.|q=yes}} (WP:DGFA).—Bagumba (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

::::::{{tq|eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met.}} JoelleJay (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::::Beat me right to it. I'll also add that judgements and feekings should absolutely be disregarded if they do not conform to policies and guidelines. SNG is simply a guide to reaching GNG, not an alternative to it. All of the 8 voters arguing otherwise were mistaken. Avilich (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::::{{ec}} But there was no consensus that "eventually" was now. WP:FAILN wasn't followed to reasonably allow possible offline sources to be uncovered. That would sway !voters that options have been exhausted.—Bagumba (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

::::::::In the absence of a fixed amount of time for source searching, the "correct" deadline defaults to the regular duration of an AfD, which has expired. Keep in mind that creating a draft is always an option if more sources are found. Avilich (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::What guideline or policy says that the "'correct' deadline defaults to the regular duration of an AfD"? That is just a made up deadline. Rlendog (talk) 14:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

::::::::::... the AfD policy itself? What's the point of having deletion discussions in the first place if the consensus at the time of its closure (that sources were not found to satisy GNG) won't be binding? This is simply how the whole process works, and any other deadline is completely arbitrary: it's thus your burden to come up with a reason (or "policy") for inventing a random amount of time during which an article cannot be deleted. (Also, isn't two and a half weeks enough anyway?) Avilich (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

::::::WP:N says GNG or SNG is acceptable, and the SNG (NSPORT) says GNG must be met. This has been upheld in hundreds of recent athlete AfDs. Regarding "eventually": who are these "subject matter experts" if not BeanieFan and Cbl62? Are you waiting for someone who specifically has expertise on a team not even notable enough for its own article because it only played in the NFL for "four" seasons (scoring a total of 13 points against league opponents)? Do you not think the folks at the Professional Football Researchers Association would have something on him if it existed? Not necessarily like a biography of him by their biography committee; just a mention at all in a Coffin Corner article somewhere, or even something discussing the Colonels in more depth than "The Colonels played with castoffs from other NFL teams, and it is doubtful whether many in Louisville bothered even to follow the team." There are multiple CC articles discussing the 1926 season in depth, and a few on the Brecks, so it's not like they didn't have access to news archives. And anyway, why should athlete bios be singularly allowed more time for source searching than bios on any other person? JoelleJay (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::::The allotted time of "eventually" is determined by the participants, and any subsequent consensus at XfD renominations. These discussions are open to the community. Admin discretion is a stretch for an 8–3 numerical count, with no policy-based basis for discounting of !votes. {{tq|When in doubt, don't delete|q=yes}} (WP:DGFA)—Bagumba (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

::::::::The admin was not "in doubt" when closing the discussion, so that doesn't apply. What does is {{tq|Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted}} (WP:DGFA), {{tq|Consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes}} and {{tq|The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments}} (WP:NHC) Avilich (talk) 13:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

::::::::FAQ4 is dependent on {{tq|given a reasonable expectation that sources can be found}}. Even if we liberally interpret Cbl62, BeanieFan11, Rlendog, Lepricavark, Curbon7, and Onel5969's !votes as all explicitly arguing SIGCOV was likely to exist given "more time" to find difficult-to-access sources, no one really made an argument justifying why it is reasonable to expect SIGCOV in the first place. Giving one explanation for why sources haven't been found so far isn't the same as demonstrating coverage exists for {{tq|other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics}}. And it's not like if the article was kept we'd have the assurance that someone was actually looking for sources; apparently out of the whole NFL project only BeanieFan and Cbl62 work on historical articles and neither of them has offered to take on draftifying/userifying, and anyway if they think the article is already in "great shape" despite lacking a single non-trivial independent source, why would we expect further expansion from them? We instead have to assume someone independently would come across this article, recognize he doesn't have SIGCOV despite the refbombing, and have access to 1920s Chicago microfiches to search thoroughly through, and the motivation to do so. At what point do we just accept that a) coverage of an individual offensive guard's performance in part of one NFL game where his team scored zero points is just not going to exist; and b) presuming it exists from his playing in non-NFL leagues is directly at odds with WP:NGRIDIRON itself?

::::::::

::::::::Also, I don't see why the nom is left out of the count, and Geschichte's comment would obviously be considered more in favor of deletion than keeping, so 8-4.5 isn't such a stretch. Not to mention the two keep !voters who have since agreed with the delete close. JoelleJay (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::{{tq|Not to mention the two keep !voters who have since agreed with the delete close|q=yes}}: One accepted the close but continues to disagree with the outcome. Both can be true (though becoming rarer in this world).—Bagumba (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

::::::::::Do you have anything to say about the other 95% of my comment? JoelleJay (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - This DRV has become exactly what DRVs are not supposed to be, namely a relitigation of the AfD. DRV is meant to be a narrow judgement on whether the close was sound, nor a broad discussion about what arguments should have been made in the AfD but were not. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• :One could boldly go and collapse off-topic comments which are (re-)arguing the content as opposed to the merits of the close's view of consensus. Otherwise, the DRV closer will weigh them appropriately.—Bagumba (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• ::{{edit conflict}} {{ping|Chalst}} that was always a little likely here. AfD DRVs are most often where the numerical backing didn't match the result (or, at least, that's what's claimed), and those can easily be kept separate from relitigating. Here we're on the prong of whether the weighting of certain !votes as being less policy driven was correct - and from what I've seen in other DRVs, that's less "is that de-weighting within admin discretion" and far more "is that de-weighting correct". It's not beyond the realms of possibility for the "losing" side here to take it as a general question to RfC. Obviously the source relitigation is not beneficial (from both sides) Nosebagbear (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

:::*Drifting off into relitigation is a constant danger at DRV, but I don't recall a DRV that went off the rails as badly as this one. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

::::I only bring up those issues to contextualize statements that the article was "well-sourced" with "17 references", since I doubt other editors are aware of the degree of triviality in those mentions. It also highlights the weaknesses in claiming sources are likely to exist. Both of these things would've been considered by Sandstein in his close, which is why I think it's relevant here. JoelleJay (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::I could not find "well-sourced" or "17 references", which you quoted, in either the AfD or this DRV. Can you provide the full sentence(s) for reference? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

::::::These were intended to be summaries of statements, not exact quotations, but here you go: "well-sourced": {{diff2|1065099917|Sourcing was quality}} and {{diff2|1065896586|Why, as an encyclopedia, would we not want to have a high-quality article on someone who meets our criteria of inclusion? Because Vainowski is just that, it was in excellent shape and meets the criteria of inclusion (NGRIDIRON)}}; "17 references": {{diff2|1065063971|Actually, the article was completely verified (with 15+ references)}} and {{diff2|1065852031|There were 17 reliable sources in the article...}}. JoelleJay (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::::AFAICS, your "summaries of statements" seem to about two statements originating from the same user.—Bagumba (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

::::::::....And? You asked for the sources, I supplied the statements (from two editors) that most directly inspired the wording in the scare quotes. JoelleJay (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

::::*Restricting my attention to {{u|JoelleJay}}'s source listing, that is regarded by many, including myself, as constructive at DRV. It doesn't usually make clear if a close was correct, but it does make it easier to understand an AfD and it proves useful if the AfD is extended. My top-level comment was not a criticism of that. — Charles Stewart (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn per Bagumba. Cbl62 (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• :Bagumba's argument is not convincing. It is not necessary (or possible) to irrefutably prove a negative (that "no acceptable sources exist"), although in this case the evidence of absence is certainly acceptable. However, those claiming that sources "likely exist" are doing nothing but special pleading (an argument which could best be summarised as "yes, no good sources have been found, but this article should still be kept despite not meeting the inclusion criteria, and despite not having any sources from which to write an encyclopedia article [as opposed to a database entry], because [insert special pleading here]"). If sources "likely exist", then it is the burden of those making the positive claim (that they do) to find them. If, despite the AfD being open for two and a half weeks, despite it having actually started more than a month ago, and despite multiple explanations that, yes, articles need to meet GNG (a widely and near unanimously held view which surely overrides any WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to the contrary), no such acceptable sources have been presented, then, yes, the article gets to be deleted for failing GNG. No amount of special pleading or pointing to some NSPORT guideline (which have quite the reputation for being overly generous in many instances) is going to change the basic fact that no acceptable sources (from which to write an article which meets WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV) have been found. If no acceptable sources have been found, then the closer has correctly assessed the consensus by discounting arguments which are not based on policy or based on misinterpretation thereof.
• :If people are worried that there hasn't been enough time to "look for sources", then A) there's nothing that prevents them from continuing looking for those (after all, if you find them, you can always write a new article based on those) and B) that is not a valid reason to indefinitely delay this: it is expected that if sources exist, they can be found in a timely manner once the topic is directly challenged at AfD ({{tq|eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met.}}). If not, too bad, life isn't fair, get on with it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

::: Whichever way we go, there really needs to be more predictability and consistency in these things. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Cook (footballer, born 1885) closed as "keep" even though there's less coverage and substance than Vainowski had. It appears that English football and American football are governed by different rules. Cbl62 (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

::::{{ping|Cbl62}} Two wrongs don't make a right. Here, fixed for you. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

::::*Two wrongs don't make a right might better be applied to the stunt you just pulled. We don't relist AfDs on the day they are closed unless the closer says it is OK to immediately relist. DRV is the right forum to object to closes you disagree with. You are injuring your credibility with this kind of behaviour. — Charles Stewart (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::: {{ping|RandomCanadian}} Renominating one article < 8 hours after a "keep" closure (and following an extended debate) does not in any way "fix" the problem. The problem is that we have a clear schism in how the presumption of notability is interpreted AND in how AfDs turning on said presumption are being closed. Rather than "fixing" something, I tend to agree with Chalst that your relist looks more like a stunt that simply brings into greater focus the arbitrariness of the process. Cbl62 (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::::If I had to guess, this was closed rather than relisted because no one actually brought up that NSPORT defers to the GNG. There were very reasonable, thoughtful !votes addressing lack of SIGCOV and the weakness in calling his league "professional", but without someone specifically rebutting the "keep passes NFOOTY" !votes with why those arguments are invalid according to the guidelines (and sticking around to defend this with citations to precedent), there's not much an admin can do. Fenix down has a solid history of explicitly acknowledging NFOOTY doesn't supersede GNG and disregarding garbage !votes, so (IMO) the arbitrariness in this case came from the lack of a clear PAG-backed delete argument in the face of a full-strength NFOOTY !voting bloc jumping in at the end rather than administrative caprices. {{U|Nosebagbear}} and {{u|Sandstein}} could probably attest to such closes being frustratingly common. JoelleJay (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn If a majority of the participants correctly recognized that NSPORTS is bullshit and took an IAR position in order to rectify the bullshit, then that consensus should be upheld. An SNG which doesn't serve as an alternative to GNG is better off being put in Category:Wikipedia humor because it's laughable at how useless it is. The participants decided that NSPORTS should not be useless. Mlb96 (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• :The only laughable thing is people arguing that a page which does not have appropriate sourcing should be kept because it meets some arbitrary internal criteria. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• ::If consensus decides that we should apply an internal criterion despite its arbitrariness, then that is what we should do. If you don't like it, then WP:MfD is an option. I'd probably vote in support of deleting NSPORTS, to be honest. A guideline is meant to make decisionmaking easier, but NSPORTS does the complete opposite. Mlb96 (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

::::The participants did not think NSPORTS is bullshit (else they wouldn't have brought it up), they simply didn't know how it works. Like it or not, NSPORTS as it exists is also the result of a consensus of editors. And closers are mandated to discount votes that are not grounded on existing policies or guidelines, which was exactly the case with the keep voters here (some even backtracked on their comments and endorsed the outcome here). What you're effectively saying is that, despite every keep voter bringing NSPORTS up, this should be ignored just because you don't like NSPORTS. The venue for complaint is its talk page, not here. Avilich (talk) 00:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::The bullshit is the line {{tq|In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should [usually interpreted as "must"] meet the General Notability Guideline}}. This line is bullshit and reduces the entire guideline to the same level as a humor page. The participants must have rejected this line per WP:IAR; that is the only explanation for the keep !votes. Mlb96 (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• :No one actually invoked IAR in this AfD... That you personally do not understand how NSPORT works despite me and others taking the time to explain it to you {{diff2|1064513655|thoughtfully and in detail}}, including showing you consensus on this topic explicitly referenced in over a dozen recent close arguments (there are hundreds more that are deleted without even needing a closing statement), does not justify leaving uncivil !votes in various discussions just to WP:POINTily announce you still don't get it. JoelleJay (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

:::The contention that nobody invoked IAR is hyper-techhnical. While nobody cited "IAR", that was the clear gist of my extensive commentary at the AfD. I acknowledged that SIGCOV was lacking at this time, but argued that the NFL, representing the tippy-top level of competition in American football, presented a special case in which the standard should not be enforced strictly, i.e., ignore/relax the rule. Cbl62 (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

::::I agree the arguments you made are consistent with the spirit of IAR (although perhaps weakened by your saying {{tq|If it were to be deleted, it would not be a significant blow to Wikipedia's coverage of American football}} ;)), which is why I used "invoked" rather than something more passive. But I also think a closer would be rather reluctant to cite (participants' arguments of) IAR as a close reason without it being invoked explicitly, since IMO that's kinda making a prescriptive closure. JoelleJay (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

::::: That level of hyper-technicality would likely not even govern in a courtroom setting. Here, as there, the spirit and substance of the arguments should govern over the technicalities. Cbl62 (talk) 04:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

:::To quote from your "thoughtful and detailed explanation": {{tq|Its "intended" purpose is so editors can create articles on people whose GNG-meeting sources might be difficult to find but which we can be 95% sure do exist.}} Anyone "can create articles" on anything. I could create an article right now consisting of nothing but the words "pee pee poo poo"; I don't need a guideline to allow me to do this, article creation is allowed by default. Of course, such an article would be deleted, and that's when the notability guidelines matter: during deletion discussions. You have not presented a single instance in which, under your interpretation, it would make sense to cite NSPORTS at a deletion discussion. And that is because there is none, because under your interpretation, the page serves no purpose. It claims to create a "presumption" of notability, but this is an outright lie because anyone can challenge a lack of sourcing and then the presumption is reversed. Your "explanations" have only made it even clearer that NSPORTS serves no purpose. Therefore, we are better off ignoring the line {{tq|In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline}} in order to make NSPORTS have a purpose. And that is what the users at this AfD must have done, and we should respect that consensus. Mlb96 (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

::::{{tq|Anyone "can create articles" on anything.}} That is not true. Only registered autoconfirmed users can create articles, which means a large number of editors must go through AfC, where one source demonstrating the subject meets NSPORT is an automatic pass (unlike all the other articles where 2 pieces of SIGCOV must be produced). The junk article in your example would also be speedied immediately without going through AfD, so that's an irrelevant comparison. And anyway, NSPORT isn't for deletion discussions; it's not meant to be a crutch for people who can't find sources, and it's not an unimpeachable, eternal presumption that sources exist. It's merely a handy flag that tells other editors "the community has determined there's a 95% probability this subject meets GNG, don't worry about trying to find sources right now." It guides new editors on the type of subject they'll have an easy time finding refs for, and gives them much better assurance that even if they don't find SIGCOV themselves there's a good chance someone else will be able to. It reduces the time it takes for a mass-creator to generate an article on an entire Premier League team from like 3 minutes a player to like 45 seconds, which is a BIG motivator for certain people. This last point is very much a reason NSPORT still exists even now that Wiki is out of the exponential phase of growth and no longer needs to legitimize itself with how many articles it has.

::::That said, it does serve some purposes in AfD: among other things, it enables speedy/SNOW closes of nominations by people who clearly didn't do a BEFORE, without having to drag an article through AfD for 7 days. And it allows an editor to say, "Hey, I can see there's a section in Wisden on this guy but Google books won't show me the whole page; his teammates all have SIGCOV there so I think there's a very high chance he does too" and have that argument actually work. A subject who would otherwise not inspire AfD participants to do a deep-dive into newspapers.com or non-English media encourages more thorough analysis by both keep and delete !voters to either validate a criterion's presumption or disprove it.

::::{{tq|we are better off ignoring the line In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline in order to make NSPORTS have a purpose. And that is what the users at this AfD must have done, and we should respect that consensus.}} We would also have to ignore the first sentence of NSPORT, much of the rest of the Applicable policies section, all of SPORTCRIT, and the FAQs. We would have to ignore the strong consensus of an extremely well-attended RfC on the topic, as well as the consensus produced by hundreds of AfD precedents. And it's not at all reasonable to claim each NSPORT-citing !voter is doing so just to prove a point about how stupid the guideline is; many are just not aware of how it works, and many others use it as a springboard to make more developed arguments (like {{u|Cbl62}} did). JoelleJay (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::Except that anyone can challenge notability immediately, and if sources aren't found, then the article gets deleted because WP:GNG takes precedence. So the {{tq|don't worry about trying to find sources right now}} concept is wrong: you do need to find sources right now or else the article will be deleted, based on your interpretation of NSPORTS. If someone didn't do a BEFORE and sources are found, then the article is kept because of GNG, not NSPORTS. And if someone didn't do a BEFORE and sources aren't found, then the article is deleted because of GNG, not NSPORTS. So it's still useless. Mlb96 (talk) 07:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

::::::Except that if you want to write an article, you better do the search for sources BEFORE writing it (as WP:V is a requirement in any and all cases), and not unloading it on somebody else. I hope that nobody is doing the silly thing of just going off through old football team rosters and adding a database entry article for everyone who ever played. If the article creator doesn't even bother to do a BEFORE search of their own, I can hardly understand how they complain that others haven't done so when others rightfully find that the article does not meet GNG. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse Saying something is "likely to be notable" is not the same as saying something "is definitely notable". It seems the Keep !votes here leaned entirely on the guideline, a la WP:MUSTBESOURCES, rather than offering reliable sources, but the guideline doesn't actually prove anything. Since sheer amount of !votes and sheer amount of sources means nothing in an AfD discussion, and it's about the substance of those sources, this was a correct close with sound reasoning._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• :Per the WP:SNG guideline: {{tq|The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic.|q=yes}} Do not confuse citing community-approved SNGs like NSPORTS with MUSTBESOURCES claims.—Bagumba (talk) 08:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• ::In the quote you just put there, it says "likely exists". However we need more than just a likelihood of sources existing, if someone cannot find the source to prove it, then it's as good as meaningless. Especially with a player this old, it may be extremely hard to access sources and the person writing the article has the burden to do that first. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• :::I was orginally only disagreeing your use of MUSTBESOURCES. However, your contention seems to be with the existence of the WP:SNG guideline itself and its "likely exists".—Bagumba (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• ::::I've never found the wording of these specific guidelines to be very good, as people tend to use them often in AfDs where they really shouldn't be used. As the page on Notability says, "Editors are cautioned that these WikiProject notability guidance pages should be treated as essays and do not establish new notability standards". _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• :::::NSPORTS (and NGRIDIRON) is a community-accepted guideline. The "WikiProject notability guidance pages" refer to pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability, and those clearly should be marked as essays or similar.—Bagumba (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• :::::: Oddly enough the portion of it saying "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline" seems to be less than community-accepted, given statements like "NSPORTS is bullshit", while evidently wishing to apply other portions of it. (Such as, one play in one game of no significance necessitating us having an article on that player.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse The presumption of notability of the SNG subsection is not a guarantee of notability. When NSPORTS says "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline" and no substantive coverage was found, the presumption was not upheld and the closure was appropriate. JoelleJay's analysis of the sources is helpful, and it remains digusting that the bar is set so low for one-off sportspeople. Reywas92^Talk 14:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment For those interested, there is now an RFC at the Village Pump regarding whether or not the current version of WP:NSPORTS should be abolished. Curbon7 (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn There is a rough local consensus to keep the article in the AfD. So the question here is there some external circumstance or extreme policy misread to still require deletion? I believe the answer here is no. Notability guidelines are as they are called just guidelines, and interpretation of them is given to the AfD discussors. And there was a rough consensus that the NSPORT's guideline is enough to provide notability, with many of the keep voters clearly making statements showing they are aware of the NSPORTS & GNG relationship. There are also no WP:SPA or other editor conduct issues that could damage the consensus, every person in this AfD are experienced editors. Thus, I do not see that the strength of the keep votes being so bad that a rough keep consensus can be changed to a resolution of delete. Jumpytoo Talk 01:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• WP:CLOSE says "Policies and guidelines are usually followed in the absence of a compelling reason otherwise, or an overwhelming consensus otherwise, and can only be changed by amending the policy itself." You appear to be arguing that such overturns should be routine, and that "only a guideline" can be employed at will. while citing parts of others in support. I'm curious as to what you infer editors concluded was the NSPORTS & GNG relationship. The points made there and indeed here seem to largely ignore it, or take radically divergent takes on it. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse The "keep" arguments were exceptionally weak, and addressed GNG only to the extent of talking around the topic. They also entirely misconstrue what NSPORT itself actually says, by citing its "participation" element, and ignoring (or maybe-eventually-ing) its explicit GNG requirement. This objection has been dismissed on the grounds that it doesn't make NSPORTS strong enough for their liking, so we should instead ignore what it actually says in favour of some non-existent maximalist alternative, where "presumed notability" is steel-manned to automatic notability, absent any actual evidence of such. The overturn arguments here amount to "just count the votes" and "implicit appeals to IAR", which is to say, no actual well-founded argument in policy and guidelines whatsoever. Or are restatements of the same flawed "keep" arguments. Ignoring P&Gs to decide if we want to relist to decide if we want to follow P&Gs or not is a decidedly Kafkaesque exercise. If we're not going to follow them, we should get better ones we can. Starting with, sports bios should (or should not, pick either one and stick with it) need to be notable. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• WP:NOTBURO comment Per the WP:NOTBURO policy: {{tq|Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles.|q=yes}} Some seem willing to die on the hill to endorse the close because NSPORTS' "should meet the General Notability Guideline" is interpreted instead as must meet GNG. This contradicts the top of Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N), where it states (emphasis added): {{tq|A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right...|q=yes}}. NSPORTS allows that {{tq|...meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept.|q=yes}} Still, !voters did not favor deleting. They chose by ~ 2:1 margin to keep. WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS reads: {{tq|Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.|q=yes}} There was no policy violation here. NGRIDRION is a guideline which was met and cited. There is no reason to discount !votes here and ignore the headcount.—Bagumba (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• :Rebuttal If there is one "side" here which is missing the spirit of the policy and unduly focusing on the letter (and doing quite badly at that, since the whole of NSPORTS explicitly states that it is subordinate to GNG, not much room for misinterpretation there unless it is deliberate), that would be those arguing to overturn/keep. The whole point of notability guidelines is ensuring that articles have sufficient sources to write more than a few lines of database-entry-like material, and meet the rest of our content policies (so WP:V [i.e. being based on reputable sources], WP:NOR [i.e. not being based on original exploration into primary source material by editors], WP:NPOV). If the article could not achieve this, then, yes, the keep votes were correctly ignored. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)