< 2014 July 26
Deletion review archives: 2014 July
2014 July 28 >

27 July 2014

  • Match World Cup – No consensus. Opinions are divided between allowing recreation and endorsing the deletion. It's not clear to me whether these are incompatible views. In my view, if somebody recreates the article now, it is likely to be speedily deleted unless it uses sources that were not discussed in previous discussions, in which case it may be made subject to a new deletion discussion.  Sandstein  10:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Match World Cup (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

International club football tournament in UAE with many well-known teams. However, on the AfD page it was consensus to delete the season-articles only per WP:NSEASONS, but main article was deleted too. I will show the notability per WP:GNG. Some links: RSSSF, Official site, report in local media, in Russian top-media, in Ukrainian top-media etc. Please restore main article into mainspace: Match World Cup. Also please restore season articles (2011, 2012, 2013) into my namespace for further working/merging into main article (as was made with ru:Match World Cup). If no, please send main article to WP:AfD again for new discussion. NickSt (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Close this listed this back in December with the exact same list of references. As nothing has apparently changed, we shouldn't entertain merely listing again and again hoping for a different result. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That request was about season articles. Now about main article only. NickSt (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to remind you, this is the string of edits where you list that review. Where you list it under the name of the top level article, where you list out the top level article as well as the "season" articles. The logs for the top level article (as well as the DRV) show it was restored for the benefit of the DRV and then deleted again once the DRV was completed. The idea that this is somehow new and different does not pass even cursory scrutiny. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what? I think this tournament deserves own article. Read Afd again. First vote against: "Season articles in contravention of WP:NSEASONS". Second vote against: "Keep the parent article, but Redirect or Delete the season-articles". Third: "Neutral leaning to delete on main article. Delete the season pages". Fourth: "Delete the season articles as a starting point". All votes against were about season articles. Clearly, it was no consensus about deletion of the main article. Also it was 5 votes for keep. Unfortunately the closer decided to delete main article also without consensus. My first DRV proposition was about all season articles. I see enough press coverage in different media for existing of page. Now I propose restore (and relist on AfD) main article only without seasons. NickSt (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand you think it deserves it's own article, but you listed it here before and the outcome was to endorse. You've come back and presented exactly the same sources which were rejected last time. You know repeating your view doesn't make it anymore persuasive. So that does appear you want to just relist until you get the result you want. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 06:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repeatedly, now my request about main article only (with merging of the season articles into main, as was proposed by majority on Afd). No analyzes of sources were given on AfD or DRV. It was no consensus for deletion of the main article. I will show notability for the tournament in the article when I will receive the sources of the main and season articles. Club champions of Russia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia took part in the competition, thats why we cannot say about "weak tournament". Definitely main article must exist. NickSt (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trying to argue that there is something materially different to the last DRV because you are not asking about the season articles is frankly an insult to everyone's intelligence, the topic has been covered. The AFD resulted in a consensus to delete - the AFD closing admins comment "the people arguing keep had three weeks on bringing significant coverage in either this debate or the article that makes the parent article meet WP:GNG, but didn't bother." (emphasis mine), the parent article was specifically covered in the decision, so your attempt to paint it as something different, which you tried in the last DRV and had rejected then too, is transparently false. You don't need to receive those sources to demonstrate notability, since they've already been found lacking, so repeating them here will be pointless. I'll look at the sources you've listed below separately. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, you shouldn't edit it now – but it is very frustrating to have to wait. Anyway, in principle DRV is assessing the AFD and so changes to the article now shouldn't make any difference to the result here. You could obviously do something in userspace with a view to merging it in during an AFD or in preparation for an acceptable new article. Thincat (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow re-creation. This user is presenting new sources that the AfD didn't consider, and the discussion we're considering is more than six months old, so it's reasonable to allow a new article to be created. As normal, this should be without prejudice to a new AfD.—S Marshall T/C 10:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Just like DRV isn't AfD round two, DRV isn't DRV round three. I looked at the sources presented here. They are almost identical to the sources presented in the previous DRV. So, nothing has changed, we're just throwing this against the wall again to see if anything sticks this time. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation and list at AfD. I agree with RoySmith that the sources presented in the DRV nomination are the same as those presented in the previous DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 December 21. However, more sources were presented here at 16:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC) by NickSt. Those sources were not considered in the AfD or the previous DRV, so I recommend relisting the article to review those sources. Cunard (talk) 02:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per RoySmith. As a non-binding suggestion, it's probably not a good idea to re-run this for DRV yet again until the tournament has occurred again and there are multiple new sources having covered the next one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Deletion review#Closing reviews states:

    If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

    If the closing admin finds that there is "no consensus", I recommend a relist. The nominator, an established editor, has make a good faith argument that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline by presenting sources that were not discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Match World Cup.

    The discussion of whether these new sources do allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline belongs at AfD, not DRV. Therefore, a relist is a better option than keeping the article deleted by default.

    Cunard (talk) 05:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wrong venue  WP:DELREVD states, "Before listing a review request, please: 1. discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review."  In the December DRV, one of the participants stated, "I am sure the closer will engage reasonably with any editor who now can bring forward more sources, or maybe even work on a userfied copy. I don't see any attempts at discussion so far."  As suggested by WP:Deletion process for Wrong forum, this request can be moved to the talk page of the closer.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Help, I'm trapped in DRV and can't get out. Could somebody please close this? I participated, so I can't close it myself. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
More