Jordan LaSecla (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article about LaSecla was originally deleted on the grounds that the subject did not meet gridiron football notability guidelines. However, now that the subject is now playing in the Italian Football League (source), subject is now notable. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Example of media coverage is here. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review
• Comment If there is new information, why isnt the article recreated instead of questioning the process of the original review? I might add that one additional reference that is WP:ROUTINE game coverage (english translation of article: [1]) does not satisfy WP:GNG, nor is Italian Football League listed unter SNG of WP:NGRIDIRON. I'm not a regular at DRV, so I'm not sure if I should be endorsing the original decision, or relisting it because of new information even if I still dont think it meets notability guidelines cited in the original AfD.—Bagumba (talk) 01:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Disallow recreation. The media coverage cited above is too superficial to convey notability or to be the basis of a WP:BLP-conforming article.  Sandstein  09:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Could the old article be userfied, with the intention to recreate when further sources (in addition to the single one cited above) are included? (Userfication was suggessted in the AfD.) -- Trevj (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

‪Template:NOT‬ (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Used for maintenance and unencylcopedic content when no alternative is available. Undelete. --Captaincollect1970 (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC) Captaincollect1970 (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn (no consensus) due to inadequate closing explanation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There is not an apparent consensus in that XfD. There are several prominent editors who in the discussion are spoke contrary to the nomination and close. There were not rebuttals to them, but repreated badgering by the nominator. I'd have like to see at least one person on addition to the nominator challenge the "Keeps". However, "rough consensus" is a judgement call that allows for signficant discretion by the closer. However, when employing significant discretion, I think explanation should be given, and especially so when challenged. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have provided an additional closing statement as requested here. We frequently get a major backlog at TfD due to the relatively small number of admins closing the discussions. Sometimes it seems very clear to me, but not to others. I am always happy to add an additional closing statement when it is requested. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse reasonable close well within admin discretion. There was some disagreement, but nothing of value (like content) seems lost, and there seems a way forward for all needs (the use of more specific templates). I seem to recall, but can't point to, a trend against extremely generic templating due to it being considered not sufficiently helpful to other editors).
• Apologies to Plastikspork. I and the nominator should have asked more personably on your talk page before making statements here. Thanks Cunard. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore Once again, used for maintenance and unencylcopedic content when no alternative is available. --Captaincollect1970 (talk) 04:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I've struck through your bolded sentiment here, as nominator your request for restoration is already known, you don't need to state it twice. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion process does not require a detailed closing explanation, so no fault there. Nomination is not an issue with the process merely disagreement. Neither are DRV issues. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There really was a rough consensus that this template should not be available for use. Editors are rightly encouraged to use a more specific template.—S Marshall T/C 15:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse, there was consensus to delete. we can always ask the admin to add a closing statement if that is an issue. Frietjes (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore there was a consensus to delete, now it's no longer needed. --Captaincollect1970 (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck duplicate !vote.—S Marshall T/C 19:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse disagreeing with the outcome is not sufficient reason to overturn the close. Hut 8.5 23:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Closer interpreted the debate correctly as bringin out too vague to be useful consensus with insufficient retort from the keeps. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]