Dairese Gary – The article was AfD'ed and brought to DRV. Then, during the discussion, it was recreated/improved in draftspace, moved to mainspace, G4'd because of the ongoing DRV, salted, then restored to draftspace. In summary of this whole "trainwreck", consensus is to endorse the original AfD delete closure (as the only possible outcome from the AfD discussion), but to allow recreation by unsalting the title (which allows moving the draft back to mainspace if appropriate). The consensus endorsing the AfD closure may be strong, and the consensus to allow recreation weak, but it is (IMO) as weak as the actual consensus in the original AfD, which has low participation and no great arguments; if it is indeed recreated, I expect it to go to a new AfD, one that will hopefully establish stronger consensus and will evaluate a more complete version of the article. Spartaz's G4 deletion "due to the ongoing DRV" (and not due to the recreation being substantially similar to the AfD'ed version) seems like it may or may not have been an error of process in the interpretation of the speedy deletion criteria but it's a relatively minor point that doesn't affect the consensus to allow recreation and might be better discussed elsewhere, such as WT:CSD – ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Dairese Gary (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) This article was closed as delete in February with all of 3 delete votes. Gary is a notable basketball player that played at New Mexico and is now playing professionally. I brought the issue up with User:Joe Decker and he gave me the standard "sorry I'm not going to recreate this consensus was reached blah blah." I then provided several sources, and he hasn't responded in several days. If I recall the article was fairly well written and well sourced, though it may have been light on sources to prove his notability. In any case I believe there are plenty of sources out there to establish that Gary is notable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Moot. There's really nothing to do here. The AfD close was the only possible close given the discussion. But, the title is not protected, so if you believe there now exist sufficient reliable sources, just go ahead and create a new version of the article with those sources. Keep in mind, however, that the article will have to stand on its own merits, and if not, it can get deleted again. If you want, I'll be happy to restore the old article to draft space so you can work on it there. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Sigh. This thing has really spun out of control. There's two quite distinct arguments going on here. The first is about process. I suspect the right thing to do about process in this case is to start trouting people, but I suspect we'd run out of fish in the sea before the job was done. The other argument is, Should this article exist? As always in these cases, that's so wrapped up with the process question, it's never going to get a good answer here. So, I suggest the right move at this point is to do nothing. If somebody moves the current draft back to main space and somebody else feels it's not appropriately sourced, they should just bring it to AfD, which is the correct forum to decide those sorts of things. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] —Bagumba (talk) 23:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Doing nothing would not be an ideal move because anyone who moves it back could be blocked for disruption. When Editorofthewiki did it, he was called "disruptive", so he likely will be wary of moving it back. I would be uncomfortable moving it back for the same reasons. Cunard (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] I don't think the fear mongering is warranted. I don't see how a page move, on it's own, would ever legitimately warrant a block.—Bagumba (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] The previous editor who moved the draft back to mainspace was called being "disruptive". If you look at your list of block reasons, you will see Wikipedia:Disruptive editing there. I don't think the move to mainspace was disruptive but someone else did. Nor do I think a block would be legitimately warranted, but someone else might. Cunard (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] I think the safest thing to do would be to do nothing for a few days, to let everyone chill out. Maybe I could work on the article some in draft space. After that, I could move it back to mainspace. If someone doesn't believe he is notable, well, isn't that what AfD is for? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Jesus Cunard by that logic any admin ever commenting that a certain behavior was disruptive would be taken to be threatening a block every time. It has been mentioned to you several times that your long wikitext heavy blocks of text disrupt the flow of discussions but I can't believe that anyone would ever see that as a legitimate block reason. Annoying, yes, unhelpful to other users but not block worthy. sigh Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Sure, although I don't think much work is needed. But I would work on it with what sources I can find. I was tempted to create the article as a stub, but I figured why create an inferior version of an article that was deleted? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] I have restored this to Draft:Dairese Gary -- RoySmith (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Endorse as no other closure could possibly have been reasonable. As usual, there is no problem with someone recreating the article if they can do it better, nor with the deleted content being restored to draft space. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, as WP:ALLOF3VOTES does not seem to exist as a policy-based reason to overturn. Tarc (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Recommend closure', as I have recreated the article with additional sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Endorse it's always been my understanding that while some minor or development league players become notable by eventually stepping up to the pro league (and a handful might be notable for unrelated activities), merely being part of the development league does not equal notability in itself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment - If the Egyptian Basketball Premier League is deemed an acceptable criteria of WP:NHOOPS, then that would be the avenue for article restoration, as the reliable sourcing is primarily trivial game log coverage. Tarc (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] This may as well be closed; User:Editorofthewiki has more or less done an end-run around the DRV process by recreating the article, G4 was rejected, and I don't have the energy to AFD it. Stifle (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Does the new one have any additional sources or claims of notability? It seems poor form to simply recreate it with the DRV heading toward consensus to endorse. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] I agree and have G4d and salted. Recreation was disrespectful of the process and disruptive. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] With all due respect that was kind of a WP:DICK move. The article did have new sources and claims of notability. You have not resolved the problem in any way. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] with the greatest possible respect to you, it was a totally dickish move to try to sidestep the drv and recreate this when it was going against you. List your new sources here and let the editors decide whether to relist the afd. In this single post you have called me stupid and a dick. You sir have less manners then my 10 year old. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Richard Kountz was also recreated while at DRV. If I was the original admin the only possible closure route was delete. I don't know how many re listings are appropriate, but 3 votes seems pretty small anyway. Also, I think you are misjudging consensus here. Any article can be recreated, just because it was deleted at AfD doesn't mean it was deleted forever. I have added several sources to the article, but it would be much harder to point to them with the article being deleted. There was one from Yahoo sports and another from the Albuquerque journal. I would not have called you a dick if you did not make the completely uncalled for move to delete, and especially, protect the article. Comparing me to a 10 year old is even more disrespectful. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] and calling me stupid isn't? Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Here's two sources: this and this. I never called you stupid, I said you made a stupid decision. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] The first is not independent of the subject, it's some sort of press release from a related sports organization, the second is a trivial report on DWI, nothing to do with his play and not suitable for a BLP. Kraxler (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] It is independent. Your statement could be read to mean an article from NBA.com cannot be used for an NBA player's article. Also, how do you define "trivial"? It's not just a one paragraph press release, it's a summary of his career, the DWI, the coach's reaction, etc. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Editorofthewiki called the speedy deletion a "stupid move". He did not call you "stupid". What Editorofthewiki meant was that smart people sometimes make stupid moves. Cunard (talk) 05:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Overturn Spartaz's speedy deletion, endorse Joe Decker's AfD close. I strongly disagree with Spartaz's assertion that "Recreation was disrespectful of the process and disruptive." Two editors, RoySmith and Stifle, said that a new version of the article could be recreated. They recommended moving the article to draft space for Editorofthewiki to work on. That is exactly what Editorofthewiki did. After he did significant work on the article, he restored it to mainspace. He followed RoySmith's advice above ("the title is not protected, so if you believe there now exist sufficient reliable sources, just go ahead and create a new version of the article with those sources"). Editorofthewiki discussed this on Spartaz's talk page. Spartaz archived the discussion after Editorofthewiki pointed this out. Stifle tagged the article for speedy deletion under ((db-repost)). The speedy deletion was declined by admin Ged UK (talk · contribs). Stifle reverted Ged UK's decline, and Spartaz deleted the article. The speedy deletion is problematic because Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion says, "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." When another admin has declined the speedy deletion under ((db-repost)), speedy deleting the article for exactly the same reason is problematic because it is clearly not an "obvious case". Furthermore, a Google cache shows many sources added that were not discussed at the AfD. Here are several: 1, 2, and 3. There is a strong argument that ((db-repost)) does not apply. The Yahoo! Sports article provides substantial coverage of the subject, which is a good indication he meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The Scout.com profile is under a paywall but based on the title ("profile"), it likely also provides substantial coverage. And here are two more Yahoo! Sports articles that provide significant coverage, 1 and 2 that are not used in the article, as well as several Scout.com articles and an article from Afrobasket (published by Eurobasket.com). While this article might be deleted in a second AfD based on the differing interpretations of the new sources, ((db-repost)) does not apply. Here are my reasons for overturning the speedy deletion: Editorofthewiki followed RoySmith and Stifle's advice to work on a new draft of the article. Editorofthewiki followed RoySmith's advice, "the title is not protected, so if you believe there now exist sufficient reliable sources, just go ahead and create a new version of the article with those sources". Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Editorofthewiki does not have to gain consensus at DRV to recreate a new version of the article with new sources. No policy, guideline, or precedent prohibits him from immediately recreating the improved article during the DRV. Recreation during DRV discussions happens frequently. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 June 8#Richard Kountz, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 May 15#Seth Goldman (businessman), and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 May 17#Array Networks for three recent examples. In fact, in the "Array Networks" discussion Spartaz himself wrote in the close, "There is never any objection to any good faith user trying their hand at a new version". This is what Editorofthewiki did here. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion qualifies only for "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version ..." Based on the new sources added, it is clear that G4 does not apply. Ged UK declined the speedy deletion request. Overriding Ged UK's decline violates the policy Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, which says, "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases". It is not an "obvious case" when another admin declined the speedy deletion. Spartaz and personal attacks at DRV It is concerning that Spartaz is for the second time in as many months getting into a conflict with an editor who improved an article at DRV. A month ago, as now, he made personal comments about the editor (me) he was in conflict with. At Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 55#Improving articles temporarily undeleted for WP:DRV, he made the unsubstantiated claim to me, "You are becoming increasingly difficult if you don't get your way and need to step back a bit and think about that". In this discussion, he wrote to Editorofthewiki, "You sir have less manners then my 10 year old." This is far more hurtful and personal than anything Editorofthewiki said. Editorofthewiki said "WP:DICK move" and "stupid move", which are very tame comments about Spartaz's actions. Spartaz, on the other hand, made a personal comment about Editorofthewiki's manners. People in a position of power over other editors must be particularly circumspect about their behavior. If Spartaz is unable to refrain from personalizing disputes when editors disagree with his DRV actions, he should stop using his admin tools in these situations. Cunard (talk) 05:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] I find it far more problematic when editors scour the internet for every name-drop and trivial mention of a subject, then write bloated Walls o' Text in the article (as well as at DRV, a tactic you are quite familiar with) to prop up the subject's notability far more than it actually is. This isn't done out of an actual desire to improve articles, but rather to thumb ones nose at the community when a consensus has been reached to delete an article, or uphold a deletion in this venue. It's like a hark back to the 2009-era Article Rescue Squad. So, yes, there's a problem here to be sure, but it certainly isn't Spartaz. Tarc (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] "So, yes, there's a problem here to be sure, but it certainly isn't Spartaz." Then what is the problem here? Am I the problem? Is Cunard? I think it IS out of a desire to improve the article and you have completely misread his intentions. Spartaz's actions speak of someone attempting to flex his muscles toward me. I don't think that consensus has necessarily been reached to delete this article, rather that Joe Decker made the correct decision. Which he probably did, even with the low turnout. However, that doesn't mean the article should stay deleted forever, provided further sources can be found. I did just that (here here and here are additional sources that Cunard never mentioned). I want to make it clear that I am not trying to be disruptive, and if that is how my actions are being viewed it is not my intent. Even though I thought User:Stifle's repeated tagging of CSD was rather WP;POINTy, at least he had the courtesy to yield to someone elses better judgement as to whether the criteria applied. Ged UK declined, meaning the only possible way the article would be deleted was through AfD. But Spartaz decided to be judge, jury, and executioner.~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Editorofthewiki, the third source you linked above is a very good article that provides 668 words of coverage about the subject: Wright, Rick (2011-03-10). "Gary's Future Is Bright Even Without NBA". Albuquerque Journal. Archived from the original on 2015-06-14. Retrieved 2015-06-14. I cannot see how your actions can be viewed as disruptive. Admins RoySmith and Stifle said that you were welcome to work on a new draft of the article, which you did. RoySmith even wrote, "the title is not protected, so if you believe there now exist sufficient reliable sources, just go ahead and create a new version of the article with those sources". And AfD closer Joe Decker (talk · contribs) wrote: "I'm not sure that that is quite enough for me to override, but you can (as you were told elsewhere) recreate." For Spartaz to then override admin Ged UK (talk · contribs)'s speedy decline and then say "Recreation was disrespectful of the process and disruptive" makes no sense when you were just following RoySmith's and Joe Decker's good advice. I agree with what you said here: Yes. I'm not entirely familiar with the proceedings at DRV. In fact, I probably shouldn't have even went there, since User:Joe Decker made the correct decision to delete based on the votes at the AfD. It would have saved a lot of Drama. However, I feel that User:Spartaz made a bad decision to just delete and protect, and compounded the issue by comparing me to a 10 year old. In nearly all situations, there would have been no drama if instead of taking this to DRV, you had just followed RoySmith's advice to recreate the article with new sources. Once the article had been recreated in a form that did not violate ((db-repost)), the DRV should have been closed as "moot". And any editor who believed the sources were insufficient should have taken this to AfD instead of speedy deleting it. Cunard (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Endorse AfD, but unsalt The AfD closure seems consistent with the input at the time. Like RoySmith and Stifle stated earlier, no problem if this article is recreated if WP:GNG can be demonstrated. However, the article has since been salted by Spartaz. The article previously could have avoided DRV and simply have been recreated by EDDY, which the editor recently stated on my talk page. I don't think the article was recreated out of bad faith, and I believe EDDY is now more familiar with the workings of DRV. Let's not make this any more punitive than it has to be, and allow the article to be improved—if possible—by unsalting it.—Bagumba (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Bagumba (talk · contribs), as an admin with access to the deleted revisions, would you review Editorofthewiki's improvements to the now-deleted draft? Is the revised article a "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" (from CSD G4)? My review of the Google cache and the sources' accessdates indicates that there were several sources added that were not discussed at the AfD. Cunard (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] I think the salting is the biggest barrier. Analyzing the CSD would not directly address that. Still, I've made the article and it's history again available at Draft:Dairese Gary, which seems appropriate for a proper review.—Bagumba (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Thank you, Bagumba (talk · contribs), for returning the deleted article to draftspace. The speedy deletion is the biggest barrier. Even if the salting is lifted, Editorofthewiki would not feel comfortable moving the article back to mainspace because it might be speedy deleted again. DRV needs to determine whether the speedy deletion under ((db-repost)) is correct. Looking at Editorofthewiki's changes, I see that he added a new section called "Professional career". The new section uses three new sources: Greene, Ryan (February 21, 2012). "Journey back to playing almost complete for New Mexico grad assistant Dairese Gary". Yahoo Sports. Retrieved June 10, 2015. "Dairese Gary Selected in First Round of D-League Draft". Mountain West Conference. November 12, 2012. Retrieved June 10, 2015. "Dairese Gary signs at Somouha". Eurobasket. Retrieved June 10, 2015. The new section appears to talk about the subject joining a team in the Egyptian Basketball Premier League, which Tarc mentioned above. ((db-repost)) clearly does not apply to a revised article with a new claim of notability and three new sources (the Yahoo! Sports article in particular is reliable and provides significant coverage). Ged UK (talk · contribs) was correct in declining the speedy deletion. Cunard (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] It's unclear if Spartaz was CSDing because this DRV was pending, or would have CSDed the same edits even if there was not a DRV. Perhaps Spartaz can share their thoughts.—Bagumba (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] I don't understand why the distinction matters. ((db-repost)) either applies or doesn't apply. CSD G4 doesn't have any special provisions for pending DRVs. When Editorofthewiki withdrew his DRV request, no one had criticized the sources he had used in the article. There was no attempt to do an end-run around of the DRV process as other editors have said. Cunard (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] I wasn't implying that there should be a distinction or not. I was merely asking Spartaz to clarify their position. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] I misunderstood. Thank you for clarifying. Cunard (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] I deleted because the DRV was pending and at the time of deletion the DRV was clearly going to endorse. Once you have asked the community for their input it is incredibly uncivil and disrespectful to the time and effort volunteers put into considering the request and offering their opinion to just ignore the discussion and recreate the article. (Especially by just moving the draft restored to help the discussion back into mainspace). The correct behavior in these circumstances is to list the new sources and ask for a relist based on that. Whether or not you agree with this, I strongly believe that organisationally we need to support and reinforce community based decision structures. Encouraging users to run around them is a recipe for chaos and a really good way to encourage an already dwindling user base to further disengage with these structures. Look at the declining participation rate at AFD to see my point. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] RoySmith and AfD closer Joe Decker both advised Editorofthewiki to work on the draft and restore it to mainspace when he thought it was ready. That is what he did. (Especially by just moving the draft restored to help the discussion back into mainspace) – this is inaccurate. RoySmith restored the draft not to help discussion but for Editorofthewiki to work on. I deleted because the DRV was pending and at the time of deletion the DRV was clearly going to endorse. – you cited ((db-repost)) in your deletion summary even though the article was not a "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" because it had a new claim of notability and three new sources. While you're welcome to hold the view that articles should not be recreated during pending DRVs, you should not use your admin tools to enforce your view without a solid basis in policy. Encouraging users to run around them is a recipe for chaos and a really good way to encourage an already dwindling user base to further disengage with these structures. Look at the declining participation rate at AFD to see my point. – there was no running around the process because Editorofthewiki followed the advice here to work on a new draft. By speedily deleting or blanking good faith editors' recreations, you are discouraging them from continuing to improve articles. Cunard (talk) 06:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Enough with the walls of text. You already had your say. Why not leave some space for other opinions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC) 08:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Trainwreck. May I suggest to the closing admin that the situation be left as-is with the article in draft space, and a further DRV to take place when its editors believe it ready for mainspace? Stifle (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Dairese Gary – The article was AfD'ed and brought to DRV. Then, during the discussion, it was recreated/improved in draftspace, moved to mainspace, G4'd because of the ongoing DRV, salted, then restored to draftspace. In summary of this whole "trainwreck", consensus is to endorse the original AfD delete closure (as the only possible outcome from the AfD discussion), but to allow recreation by unsalting the title (which allows moving the draft back to mainspace if appropriate). The consensus endorsing the AfD closure may be strong, and the consensus to allow recreation weak, but it is (IMO) as weak as the actual consensus in the original AfD, which has low participation and no great arguments; if it is indeed recreated, I expect it to go to a new AfD, one that will hopefully establish stronger consensus and will evaluate a more complete version of the article. Spartaz's G4 deletion "due to the ongoing DRV" (and not due to the recreation being substantially similar to the AfD'ed version) seems like it may or may not have been an error of process in the interpretation of the speedy deletion criteria but it's a relatively minor point that doesn't affect the consensus to allow recreation and might be better discussed elsewhere, such as WT:CSD – ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This article was closed as delete in February with all of 3 delete votes. Gary is a notable basketball player that played at New Mexico and is now playing professionally. I brought the issue up with User:Joe Decker and he gave me the standard "sorry I'm not going to recreate this consensus was reached blah blah." I then provided several sources, and he hasn't responded in several days. If I recall the article was fairly well written and well sourced, though it may have been light on sources to prove his notability. In any case I believe there are plenty of sources out there to establish that Gary is notable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moot. There's really nothing to do here. The AfD close was the only possible close given the discussion. But, the title is not protected, so if you believe there now exist sufficient reliable sources, just go ahead and create a new version of the article with those sources. Keep in mind, however, that the article will have to stand on its own merits, and if not, it can get deleted again. If you want, I'll be happy to restore the old article to draft space so you can work on it there. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. This thing has really spun out of control. There's two quite distinct arguments going on here. The first is about process. I suspect the right thing to do about process in this case is to start trouting people, but I suspect we'd run out of fish in the sea before the job was done. The other argument is, Should this article exist? As always in these cases, that's so wrapped up with the process question, it's never going to get a good answer here. So, I suggest the right move at this point is to do nothing. If somebody moves the current draft back to main space and somebody else feels it's not appropriately sourced, they should just bring it to AfD, which is the correct forum to decide those sorts of things. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

—Bagumba (talk) 23:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doing nothing would not be an ideal move because anyone who moves it back could be blocked for disruption. When Editorofthewiki did it, he was called "disruptive", so he likely will be wary of moving it back. I would be uncomfortable moving it back for the same reasons. Cunard (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the fear mongering is warranted. I don't see how a page move, on it's own, would ever legitimately warrant a block.—Bagumba (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The previous editor who moved the draft back to mainspace was called being "disruptive". If you look at your list of block reasons, you will see Wikipedia:Disruptive editing there. I don't think the move to mainspace was disruptive but someone else did. Nor do I think a block would be legitimately warranted, but someone else might. Cunard (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the safest thing to do would be to do nothing for a few days, to let everyone chill out. Maybe I could work on the article some in draft space. After that, I could move it back to mainspace. If someone doesn't believe he is notable, well, isn't that what AfD is for? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Cunard by that logic any admin ever commenting that a certain behavior was disruptive would be taken to be threatening a block every time. It has been mentioned to you several times that your long wikitext heavy blocks of text disrupt the flow of discussions but I can't believe that anyone would ever see that as a legitimate block reason. Annoying, yes, unhelpful to other users but not block worthy. *sigh* Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Sure, although I don't think much work is needed. But I would work on it with what sources I can find. I was tempted to create the article as a stub, but I figured why create an inferior version of an article that was deleted? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have restored this to Draft:Dairese Gary -- RoySmith (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as no other closure could possibly have been reasonable. As usual, there is no problem with someone recreating the article if they can do it better, nor with the deleted content being restored to draft space. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, as WP:ALLOF3VOTES does not seem to exist as a policy-based reason to overturn. Tarc (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend closure', as I have recreated the article with additional sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse it's always been my understanding that while some minor or development league players become notable by eventually stepping up to the pro league (and a handful might be notable for unrelated activities), merely being part of the development league does not equal notability in itself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the Egyptian Basketball Premier League is deemed an acceptable criteria of WP:NHOOPS, then that would be the avenue for article restoration, as the reliable sourcing is primarily trivial game log coverage. Tarc (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This may as well be closed; User:Editorofthewiki has more or less done an end-run around the DRV process by recreating the article, G4 was rejected, and I don't have the energy to AFD it. Stifle (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Does the new one have any additional sources or claims of notability? It seems poor form to simply recreate it with the DRV heading toward consensus to endorse. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree and have G4d and salted. Recreation was disrespectful of the process and disruptive. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - With all due respect that was kind of a WP:DICK move. The article did have new sources and claims of notability. You have not resolved the problem in any way. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - with the greatest possible respect to you, it was a totally dickish move to try to sidestep the drv and recreate this when it was going against you. List your new sources here and let the editors decide whether to relist the afd. In this single post you have called me stupid and a dick. You sir have less manners then my 10 year old. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Richard Kountz was also recreated while at DRV. If I was the original admin the only possible closure route was delete. I don't know how many re listings are appropriate, but 3 votes seems pretty small anyway. Also, I think you are misjudging consensus here. Any article can be recreated, just because it was deleted at AfD doesn't mean it was deleted forever. I have added several sources to the article, but it would be much harder to point to them with the article being deleted. There was one from Yahoo sports and another from the Albuquerque journal. I would not have called you a dick if you did not make the completely uncalled for move to delete, and especially, protect the article. Comparing me to a 10 year old is even more disrespectful. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        and calling me stupid isn't? Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Here's two sources: this and this. I never called you stupid, I said you made a stupid decision. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first is not independent of the subject, it's some sort of press release from a related sports organization, the second is a trivial report on DWI, nothing to do with his play and not suitable for a BLP. Kraxler (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is independent. Your statement could be read to mean an article from NBA.com cannot be used for an NBA player's article. Also, how do you define "trivial"? It's not just a one paragraph press release, it's a summary of his career, the DWI, the coach's reaction, etc. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editorofthewiki called the speedy deletion a "stupid move". He did not call you "stupid". What Editorofthewiki meant was that smart people sometimes make stupid moves. Cunard (talk) 05:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Spartaz's speedy deletion, endorse Joe Decker's AfD close.
I strongly disagree with Spartaz's assertion that "Recreation was disrespectful of the process and disruptive." Two editors, RoySmith and Stifle, said that a new version of the article could be recreated. They recommended moving the article to draft space for Editorofthewiki to work on. That is exactly what Editorofthewiki did. After he did significant work on the article, he restored it to mainspace. He followed RoySmith's advice above ("the title is not protected, so if you believe there now exist sufficient reliable sources, just go ahead and create a new version of the article with those sources").
Editorofthewiki discussed this on Spartaz's talk page. Spartaz archived the discussion after Editorofthewiki pointed this out.
Stifle tagged the article for speedy deletion under ((db-repost)). The speedy deletion was declined by admin Ged UK (talk · contribs). Stifle reverted Ged UK's decline, and Spartaz deleted the article. The speedy deletion is problematic because Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion says, "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." When another admin has declined the speedy deletion under ((db-repost)), speedy deleting the article for exactly the same reason is problematic because it is clearly not an "obvious case".
Furthermore, a Google cache shows many sources added that were not discussed at the AfD. Here are several: 1, 2, and 3. There is a strong argument that ((db-repost)) does not apply. The Yahoo! Sports article provides substantial coverage of the subject, which is a good indication he meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The Scout.com profile is under a paywall but based on the title ("profile"), it likely also provides substantial coverage.
And here are two more Yahoo! Sports articles that provide significant coverage, 1 and 2 that are not used in the article, as well as several Scout.com articles and an article from Afrobasket (published by Eurobasket.com).
While this article might be deleted in a second AfD based on the differing interpretations of the new sources, ((db-repost)) does not apply.
Here are my reasons for overturning the speedy deletion:
1. Editorofthewiki followed RoySmith and Stifle's advice to work on a new draft of the article.
2. Editorofthewiki followed RoySmith's advice, "the title is not protected, so if you believe there now exist sufficient reliable sources, just go ahead and create a new version of the article with those sources".
3. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Editorofthewiki does not have to gain consensus at DRV to recreate a new version of the article with new sources. No policy, guideline, or precedent prohibits him from immediately recreating the improved article during the DRV.
4. Recreation during DRV discussions happens frequently. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 June 8#Richard Kountz, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 May 15#Seth Goldman (businessman), and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 May 17#Array Networks for three recent examples. In fact, in the "Array Networks" discussion Spartaz himself wrote in the close, "There is never any objection to any good faith user trying their hand at a new version". This is what Editorofthewiki did here.
5. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion qualifies only for "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version ..." Based on the new sources added, it is clear that G4 does not apply.
6. Ged UK declined the speedy deletion request. Overriding Ged UK's decline violates the policy Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, which says, "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases". It is not an "obvious case" when another admin declined the speedy deletion.
Spartaz and personal attacks at DRV
It is concerning that Spartaz is for the second time in as many months getting into a conflict with an editor who improved an article at DRV. A month ago, as now, he made personal comments about the editor (me) he was in conflict with. At Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 55#Improving articles temporarily undeleted for WP:DRV, he made the unsubstantiated claim to me, "You are becoming increasingly difficult if you don't get your way and need to step back a bit and think about that".
In this discussion, he wrote to Editorofthewiki, "You sir have less manners then my 10 year old." This is far more hurtful and personal than anything Editorofthewiki said. Editorofthewiki said "WP:DICK move" and "stupid move", which are very tame comments about Spartaz's actions. Spartaz, on the other hand, made a personal comment about Editorofthewiki's manners.
People in a position of power over other editors must be particularly circumspect about their behavior. If Spartaz is unable to refrain from personalizing disputes when editors disagree with his DRV actions, he should stop using his admin tools in these situations.
Cunard (talk) 05:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find it far more problematic when editors scour the internet for every name-drop and trivial mention of a subject, then write bloated Walls o' Text in the article (as well as at DRV, a tactic you are quite familiar with) to prop up the subject's notability far more than it actually is. This isn't done out of an actual desire to improve articles, but rather to thumb ones nose at the community when a consensus has been reached to delete an article, or uphold a deletion in this venue. It's like a hark back to the 2009-era Article Rescue Squad. So, yes, there's a problem here to be sure, but it certainly isn't Spartaz. Tarc (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"So, yes, there's a problem here to be sure, but it certainly isn't Spartaz." Then what is the problem here? Am I the problem? Is Cunard? I think it IS out of a desire to improve the article and you have completely misread his intentions. Spartaz's actions speak of someone attempting to flex his muscles toward me. I don't think that consensus has necessarily been reached to delete this article, rather that Joe Decker made the correct decision. Which he probably did, even with the low turnout. However, that doesn't mean the article should stay deleted forever, provided further sources can be found. I did just that (here here and here are additional sources that Cunard never mentioned). I want to make it clear that I am not trying to be disruptive, and if that is how my actions are being viewed it is not my intent. Even though I thought User:Stifle's repeated tagging of CSD was rather WP;POINTy, at least he had the courtesy to yield to someone elses better judgement as to whether the criteria applied. Ged UK declined, meaning the only possible way the article would be deleted was through AfD. But Spartaz decided to be judge, jury, and executioner.~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editorofthewiki, the third source you linked above is a very good article that provides 668 words of coverage about the subject:
Wright, Rick (2011-03-10). "Gary's Future Is Bright Even Without NBA". Albuquerque Journal. Archived from the original on 2015-06-14. Retrieved 2015-06-14.
I cannot see how your actions can be viewed as disruptive.
Admins RoySmith and Stifle said that you were welcome to work on a new draft of the article, which you did. RoySmith even wrote, "the title is not protected, so if you believe there now exist sufficient reliable sources, just go ahead and create a new version of the article with those sources". And AfD closer Joe Decker (talk · contribs) wrote: "I'm not sure that that is quite enough for me to override, but you can (as you were told elsewhere) recreate."
For Spartaz to then override admin Ged UK (talk · contribs)'s speedy decline and then say "Recreation was disrespectful of the process and disruptive" makes no sense when you were just following RoySmith's and Joe Decker's good advice.
I agree with what you said here:
Yes. I'm not entirely familiar with the proceedings at DRV. In fact, I probably shouldn't have even went there, since User:Joe Decker made the correct decision to delete based on the votes at the AfD. It would have saved a lot of Drama. However, I feel that User:Spartaz made a bad decision to just delete and protect, and compounded the issue by comparing me to a 10 year old.
In nearly all situations, there would have been no drama if instead of taking this to DRV, you had just followed RoySmith's advice to recreate the article with new sources.
Once the article had been recreated in a form that did not violate ((db-repost)), the DRV should have been closed as "moot". And any editor who believed the sources were insufficient should have taken this to AfD instead of speedy deleting it.
Cunard (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse AfD, but unsalt The AfD closure seems consistent with the input at the time. Like RoySmith and Stifle stated earlier, no problem if this article is recreated if WP:GNG can be demonstrated. However, the article has since been salted by Spartaz. The article previously could have avoided DRV and simply have been recreated by EDDY, which the editor recently stated on my talk page. I don't think the article was recreated out of bad faith, and I believe EDDY is now more familiar with the workings of DRV. Let's not make this any more punitive than it has to be, and allow the article to be improved—if possible—by unsalting it.—Bagumba (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bagumba (talk · contribs), as an admin with access to the deleted revisions, would you review Editorofthewiki's improvements to the now-deleted draft? Is the revised article a "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" (from CSD G4)? My review of the Google cache and the sources' accessdates indicates that there were several sources added that were not discussed at the AfD. Cunard (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the salting is the biggest barrier. Analyzing the CSD would not directly address that. Still, I've made the article and it's history again available at Draft:Dairese Gary, which seems appropriate for a proper review.—Bagumba (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bagumba (talk · contribs), for returning the deleted article to draftspace. The speedy deletion is the biggest barrier. Even if the salting is lifted, Editorofthewiki would not feel comfortable moving the article back to mainspace because it might be speedy deleted again. DRV needs to determine whether the speedy deletion under ((db-repost)) is correct.
Looking at Editorofthewiki's changes, I see that he added a new section called "Professional career". The new section uses three new sources:
1. Greene, Ryan (February 21, 2012). "Journey back to playing almost complete for New Mexico grad assistant Dairese Gary". Yahoo Sports. Retrieved June 10, 2015.
2. "Dairese Gary Selected in First Round of D-League Draft". Mountain West Conference. November 12, 2012. Retrieved June 10, 2015.
3. "Dairese Gary signs at Somouha". Eurobasket. Retrieved June 10, 2015.
The new section appears to talk about the subject joining a team in the Egyptian Basketball Premier League, which Tarc mentioned above.
((db-repost)) clearly does not apply to a revised article with a new claim of notability and three new sources (the Yahoo! Sports article in particular is reliable and provides significant coverage). Ged UK (talk · contribs) was correct in declining the speedy deletion.
Cunard (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear if Spartaz was CSDing because this DRV was pending, or would have CSDed the same edits even if there was not a DRV. Perhaps Spartaz can share their thoughts.—Bagumba (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why the distinction matters. ((db-repost)) either applies or doesn't apply. CSD G4 doesn't have any special provisions for pending DRVs. When Editorofthewiki withdrew his DRV request, no one had criticized the sources he had used in the article. There was no attempt to do an end-run around of the DRV process as other editors have said. Cunard (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't implying that there should be a distinction or not. I was merely asking Spartaz to clarify their position. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood. Thank you for clarifying. Cunard (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted because the DRV was pending and at the time of deletion the DRV was clearly going to endorse. Once you have asked the community for their input it is incredibly uncivil and disrespectful to the time and effort volunteers put into considering the request and offering their opinion to just ignore the discussion and recreate the article. (Especially by just moving the draft restored to help the discussion back into mainspace). The correct behavior in these circumstances is to list the new sources and ask for a relist based on that. Whether or not you agree with this, I strongly believe that organisationally we need to support and reinforce community based decision structures. Encouraging users to run around them is a recipe for chaos and a really good way to encourage an already dwindling user base to further disengage with these structures. Look at the declining participation rate at AFD to see my point. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith and AfD closer Joe Decker both advised Editorofthewiki to work on the draft and restore it to mainspace when he thought it was ready. That is what he did.
(Especially by just moving the draft restored to help the discussion back into mainspace) – this is inaccurate. RoySmith restored the draft not to help discussion but for Editorofthewiki to work on.
I deleted because the DRV was pending and at the time of deletion the DRV was clearly going to endorse. – you cited ((db-repost)) in your deletion summary even though the article was not a "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" because it had a new claim of notability and three new sources. While you're welcome to hold the view that articles should not be recreated during pending DRVs, you should not use your admin tools to enforce your view without a solid basis in policy.
Encouraging users to run around them is a recipe for chaos and a really good way to encourage an already dwindling user base to further disengage with these structures. Look at the declining participation rate at AFD to see my point. – there was no running around the process because Editorofthewiki followed the advice here to work on a new draft. By speedily deleting or blanking good faith editors' recreations, you are discouraging them from continuing to improve articles.
Cunard (talk) 06:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with the walls of text. You already had your say. Why not leave some space for other opinions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC) 08:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trainwreck. May I suggest to the closing admin that the situation be left as-is with the article in draft space, and a further DRV to take place when its editors believe it ready for mainspace? Stifle (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Eric Sullivan – "Delete" closure endorsed. – Sandstein 06:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Eric Sullivan (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Please see the discussion on my talk page here. I closed the deletion discussion on this individual on 30 May as delete based on the fact that although there was a technical joint/partial Grammy award as a producer on an album that won Grammy Award for Best New Age Album the subject undoubtedly failed the GNG. As this is a BLP and since WP:ANYBIO was in tension with WP:N and the WP:GNG I closed in favour of delete based on the view that (especially in the case of a BLP) a subject that demonstratively fails to meet N should not have an article based on an SNG criteria unless there is an overwhelming consensus in the discussion (which there wasn't) to give favour to the SNG over N. Given the challenge to this interpretation, I agreed to list this here for a view on whether or not it was in my discretion as closing admin to close that way. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note that I have temporarily undeleted this page to assist discussion here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note BiH (who created the article and disputes the closure) is an undisclosed paid editor. The original version of this is very similar to others with copyvio, unsourced BLP content and promotional language. Compare this and this. Spartaz made the right decision and I see no need for the community to waste even more time discussing an issue that only a conflicted editor is disputing. SmartSE (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment I voted "keep" at this AfD, based on the award, the nature of which is quite clear to me: The subject took a little statuette home for his work on the album. However, there are two major obstacles here: First, the name is very common, and google and other searches get contaminated by millions of Erics, Sullivans, and Eric Sullivans. Second, refining the search in any way only turns up a few mentions of his name in connection with his wife, the Grammy-winning artist, or the album, absolutely nothing else. Under the circumstances, I think it was within the discretion of the closer to delete it, although redirecting Eric Sullivan to Laura Sullivan (composer) would be preferable. Kraxler (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] @Smartse: I'm as opposed to paid editing as anybody, but what evidence is there to support such an accusation here? On the surface, it seems like a reasonable close, but I'm not very familiar with the music-related notability rules, so I have no strong opinion on how this should have gone. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] @RoySmith: see here, here and here. Obviously as they haven't disclosed it regarding this article there is no definitive evidence, but I haven't found any articles that they created that don't have problems. It obviously doesn't make any difference at AFDs or here, but if they aren't going to disclose their COI, I'm going to make sure that others are aware of it. SmartSE (talk) 19:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment I suppose to endorse the deletion but I feel so half-hearted that I won't put that in bold. It is very helpful for Spartaz to be bringing the matter here. Spartaz is quite wrong in supposing there is any tension at all between WP:N and WP:ANYBIO. The former says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right" and ANYBIO (part of Wikipedia:Notability (people)) is one such guideline listed. Therefore if a subject meets ANYBIO (and this will sometimes be arguable) notability may be presumed. Even given a presumption of notability it is entirely proper for people at AFD to decide that the subject is not notable. And of course they may not consider that ANYBIO has been met anyway. These matters are for the jury and are not points of law for the judge. Thincat (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] The closure was a reasonable exercise of the administrator's discretion and I endorse it. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] This bit: a subject that demonstratively fails to meet N should not have an article based on an SNG criteria unless there is an overwhelming consensus in the discussion -- this perfectly encapsulates my view. I also endorse the close.—S Marshall T/C 17:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Overturn The relationship between the GNG and the SNGs is frequently disputed. The general statement at the WP:N guideline is unambiguous: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. " The word used here is "OR". OR means OR, not AND. A relevant SNG is of equal value as the GNG, and meeting either is sufficient--unless there is a specific statement otherwise that is accepted as a guideline. The one most often disputed is NSPORTS, which has often been considered to be specifically a limitation on the GNG--although the guideline itself clearly reads otherwise (personally, I'd like to change that, but at present it too is a clear OR). Anyway, that one is not at issue here. The close was in error, because it was based on the direct opposite of the relevant established guideline. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Following through the argument however requires actually reading the SNG. In this case the linked from WP:N is WP:PEOPLE, that makes it clear what it's basic criteria is, and it isn't WP:ANYBIO, it's pretty much the same as WP:GNG. The additional criteria of which WP:ANYBIO is one are stated as somewhat less than the presumed notability on which your opinino seems to rely. "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.". So if you want to go by the precise word of the guidelines, then it's pretty clear WP:ANYBIO is merely indicative and subordinate to WP:GNG --86.2.216.5 (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Which is my reasoning exactly. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - I view this like the "group sex awards don't count" recently adopted at WP:PORNBIO. If the only thing the subject is hanging his hat on to get an article is a shared Grammy, sorry, that isn't enough. Tarc (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] endorse While I tend to rate the SNG more highly than the closer, even for a BLP, that's a reasonable close. If I'd have had to close it, I'd have been torn between NC and delete. Hobit (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to no consensus - at least one sockpuppet was struck, which puts the headcount in a dubious state. Discussion is more "keep-y" than the !votes, and the discussion turns towards the end (where it's importantly noted the Grammies appear to consider him a grammy winner, which earlier discussion was unclear on, but indicated would be more in line with meeting NMUSIC). Yes, the page should probably be redirected/smerged to Love's River or Laura Sullivan (composer), but that's no reason to get the close off (especially when a NC close is far less damaging to attempts to sort out the page in the future.) Wily D 08:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Endorse the SNG claimed in this case is one which is specifically noted as an additional criteria which is "lower" than the basic criteria which is GNG, given that nature of the award is also "questionable" as not being awarded to the person, the close seems entirely reasonable. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, with disclosure that I voiced a Delete opinion in the original discussion. There are some really overblown claims being made here to give the illusion of notability, but they can't paper over the fact there is precious little in the way of reliable sources for us to build a bio from. We shouldn't have biographies of living people on the site where we can't provide credible information backed by reliable sources, regardless of whether he might meet some SNG in some technical way (which, to boot, I do not believe he does). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC).[reply] Endorse. The SNG points are weak indicators, and are not worthy points to use as arguments as AfD. Everyone else agreed to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Endorse appears to have been solidly within administrator discretion. Regarding the broader issue of whether this guideline overrides that guideline and this conflicts with that and so on, none of that really matters if there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources to actually base an article on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Eric Sullivan – "Delete" closure endorsed. – Sandstein 06:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Please see the discussion on my talk page here. I closed the deletion discussion on this individual on 30 May as delete based on the fact that although there was a technical joint/partial Grammy award as a producer on an album that won Grammy Award for Best New Age Album the subject undoubtedly failed the GNG. As this is a BLP and since WP:ANYBIO was in tension with WP:N and the WP:GNG I closed in favour of delete based on the view that (especially in the case of a BLP) a subject that demonstratively fails to meet N should not have an article based on an SNG criteria unless there is an overwhelming consensus in the discussion (which there wasn't) to give favour to the SNG over N. Given the challenge to this interpretation, I agreed to list this here for a view on whether or not it was in my discretion as closing admin to close that way. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have temporarily undeleted this page to assist discussion here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note BiH (who created the article and disputes the closure) is an undisclosed paid editor. The original version of this is very similar to others with copyvio, unsourced BLP content and promotional language. Compare this and this. Spartaz made the right decision and I see no need for the community to waste even more time discussing an issue that only a conflicted editor is disputing. SmartSE (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I voted "keep" at this AfD, based on the award, the nature of which is quite clear to me: The subject took a little statuette home for his work on the album. However, there are two major obstacles here: First, the name is very common, and google and other searches get contaminated by millions of Erics, Sullivans, and Eric Sullivans. Second, refining the search in any way only turns up a few mentions of his name in connection with his wife, the Grammy-winning artist, or the album, absolutely nothing else. Under the circumstances, I think it was within the discretion of the closer to delete it, although redirecting Eric Sullivan to Laura Sullivan (composer) would be preferable. Kraxler (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Smartse: I'm as opposed to paid editing as anybody, but what evidence is there to support such an accusation here? On the surface, it seems like a reasonable close, but I'm not very familiar with the music-related notability rules, so I have no strong opinion on how this should have gone. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @RoySmith: see here, here and here. Obviously as they haven't disclosed it regarding this article there is no definitive evidence, but I haven't found any articles that they created that don't have problems. It obviously doesn't make any difference at AFDs or here, but if they aren't going to disclose their COI, I'm going to make sure that others are aware of it. SmartSE (talk) 19:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suppose to endorse the deletion but I feel so half-hearted that I won't put that in bold. It is very helpful for Spartaz to be bringing the matter here. Spartaz is quite wrong in supposing there is any tension at all between WP:N and WP:ANYBIO. The former says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right" and ANYBIO (part of Wikipedia:Notability (people)) is one such guideline listed. Therefore if a subject meets ANYBIO (and this will sometimes be arguable) notability may be presumed. Even given a presumption of notability it is entirely proper for people at AFD to decide that the subject is not notable. And of course they may not consider that ANYBIO has been met anyway. These matters are for the jury and are not points of law for the judge. Thincat (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The closure was a reasonable exercise of the administrator's discretion and I endorse it. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This bit: a subject that demonstratively fails to meet N should not have an article based on an SNG criteria unless there is an overwhelming consensus in the discussion -- this perfectly encapsulates my view. I also endorse the close.—S Marshall T/C 17:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The relationship between the GNG and the SNGs is frequently disputed. The general statement at the WP:N guideline is unambiguous: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. " The word used here is "OR". OR means OR, not AND. A relevant SNG is of equal value as the GNG, and meeting either is sufficient--unless there is a specific statement otherwise that is accepted as a guideline. The one most often disputed is NSPORTS, which has often been considered to be specifically a limitation on the GNG--although the guideline itself clearly reads otherwise (personally, I'd like to change that, but at present it too is a clear OR). Anyway, that one is not at issue here. The close was in error, because it was based on the direct opposite of the relevant established guideline. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Following through the argument however requires actually reading the SNG. In this case the linked from WP:N is WP:PEOPLE, that makes it clear what it's basic criteria is, and it isn't WP:ANYBIO, it's pretty much the same as WP:GNG. The additional criteria of which WP:ANYBIO is one are stated as somewhat less than the presumed notability on which your opinino seems to rely. "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.". So if you want to go by the precise word of the guidelines, then it's pretty clear WP:ANYBIO is merely indicative and subordinate to WP:GNG --86.2.216.5 (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which is my reasoning exactly. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I view this like the "group sex awards don't count" recently adopted at WP:PORNBIO. If the only thing the subject is hanging his hat on to get an article is a shared Grammy, sorry, that isn't enough. Tarc (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
endorse While I tend to rate the SNG more highly than the closer, even for a BLP, that's a reasonable close. If I'd have had to close it, I'd have been torn between NC and delete. Hobit (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus - at least one sockpuppet was struck, which puts the headcount in a dubious state. Discussion is more "keep-y" than the !votes, and the discussion turns towards the end (where it's importantly noted the Grammies appear to consider him a grammy winner, which earlier discussion was unclear on, but indicated would be more in line with meeting NMUSIC). Yes, the page should probably be redirected/smerged to Love's River or Laura Sullivan (composer), but that's no reason to get the close off (especially when a NC close is far less damaging to attempts to sort out the page in the future.) Wily D 08:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the SNG claimed in this case is one which is specifically noted as an additional criteria which is "lower" than the basic criteria which is GNG, given that nature of the award is also "questionable" as not being awarded to the person, the close seems entirely reasonable. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, with disclosure that I voiced a Delete opinion in the original discussion. There are some really overblown claims being made here to give the illusion of notability, but they can't paper over the fact there is precious little in the way of reliable sources for us to build a bio from. We shouldn't have biographies of living people on the site where we can't provide credible information backed by reliable sources, regardless of whether he might meet some SNG in some technical way (which, to boot, I do not believe he does). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse. The SNG points are weak indicators, and are not worthy points to use as arguments as AfD. Everyone else agreed to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse appears to have been solidly within administrator discretion. Regarding the broader issue of whether this guideline overrides that guideline and this conflicts with that and so on, none of that really matters if there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources to actually base an article on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.