Maito Santos – Endorse, consensus is clear that the AFD did in fact consider the new sources, found them wanting, and the participants here see nothing wrong with that assessment as e.g the the new sources are in Japanese and it's not clear that they discuss the subject of the AFD. There was some discussion of allowing draftification, some people are concerned that it would be end-running the AFD. Thus, while draftification or the writing of a new draft are not explicitly forbidden editors should probably exercise caution. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Maito Santos (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Two sources that were indepth of the subject that should allow him to pass GNG were brought up, but they were not commented on by the next two editors. ミラ P 18:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse as the proper close. The appellant found two additional sources. The proper response to finding new sources should have been to Relist the AFD. The closer did Relist the AFD, and it was added to another deletion sorting list. The community, including the subsequently responding editors, did not find that the additional sources established notability. The Relist was correct, and the close after the second listing was correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] @Robert McClenon: I'll clarify that the fact that some comment on the sources would've had some effect on the AFD result. ミラ P 05:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] User:Miraclepine Are you criticizing the close, or the editors? What relief do you want? Will the right to create a Draft satisfy you? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] @Robert McClenon: The close. Moving it to draft will do. ミラ P 16:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] So now I'm envisaging some hypothetical Wikipedia-equivalent where AfD participants are required to comment on each provided source individually, in some bizarre counterpart to Brandolini's Law. I'm glad I don't edit that online encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 02:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] I agree with S Marshall that this is an absurd expectation. When listing the sources, ミラ should have provided an translation of an excerpt of the secondary source coverage from the source. Throwing up a source that doesn’t even use the same for the subject was worthy of being ignored. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. ミラ P 05:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - yes, potentially GNG-satisfying were provided but following a realist two further delete votes were added. The consensus is clear. Fenix down (talk) 08:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] @Fenix down: Both of them did not comment on the sources I provided, so did not debunk whether or not they counted towards GNG. ミラ P 16:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse it would definitely have been better if the two links provided were explicitly rebutted, but the two people who commented after the relist presumably didn't think they were enough to satisfy the GNG. While Google Translate does make a mess of them I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that they don't represent significant coverage. Hut 8.5 12:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] @Hut 8.5: Why would they represent significant coverage? ミラ P 16:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse as above. Consensus was clear. Giant Snowman 12:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] When I translate the two offered sources, neither mentions the subject. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] @SmokeyJoe: The subject's name is 三渡洲舞人. ミラ P 03:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Maito Miwatasu? Why the name mismatch? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] @SmokeyJoe: GT has a lot of hiccups, and it will always have at least one every time. Something you know when you're translating jawiki articles into enwiki. That's why someone invented copywriting. ミラ P 04:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Usually I find google translations easily good enough, and a desktop computer. It's easy enough to allow for grammar troubles. Euphemisms require care. I see that Japanese names can be troublesome. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] The first is an interview of the subject and his family. Not independent, does not meet the GNG. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] The second is not sufficient coverage of the subject, it is repeating facts (height, blood type), and the closest thing to comment ("and is eager to become the face of the world's top brands") is non-independent promotional. This reads very much like a soccer kid who had some media coverage, and who now wants to embark on a modelling career and is seeking promotion angling off his soccer history. No. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Good close. The two mentioned sources were appropriately ignored, they are weak and GNG-failing. Properly deleted at AfD last week, found by a community discussion to be not notable. Discourage drafting a new attempt in the absence of new (post AfD) sources, and at least six months. AfD needs some respect of its result. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] @SmokeyJoe: Were they? I'd like to ask @DennisTheTiger, No Great Shaker, and BD2412:. ミラ P 23:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Were they? Were they ignored, yes. Appropriately? I’m saying yes, because the were foreign, and the proponent presenting them made insufficient analysis and explanation on them. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse but draft- clear consensus for deletion, but if Miraclepine thinks they can improve it, lets put it in draft and submit it. Lightburst (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse We do a terrible job with identifying significant coverage from articles that don't have a primarily English-language background. A web search brings up a decent amount on him (though my Japanese is extremely basic) and those articles probably do come close to passing WP:GNG if they don't actually pass it, but the consensus was clear and there's no other way to close that discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 08:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Comment - A trout to the appellant for wasting the time of the community in saying that the closer should have supervoted in discounting the community's ignoring of the alleged added sources. As per User:SmokeyJoe, do not provide a new draft. A barnstar https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASmokeyJoe&type=revision&diff=934643249&oldid=934016867 to User:SmokeyJoe for doing the research to discredit this appeal. This almost qualifies for salt, almost. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] NB. I would call this a close to line call. On examining the two sources, it is my judgement that they do not meet the GNG, the 1st primarily because it is a very close perspective story taking its information directly from the author interviewing the subject and his family, which makes this source "non-independent" in WP:GNG terms. Other Wikipedians disagree with this line of assessment, although I think they are wrong. Reasonable others may disagree. The 2nd source reads as promotion with negligible secondary source content, which I think is a less contentious reason for rejecting it as meeting the GNG. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Comment as closer. No objection to refunding to draft, provided that this goes through the usual AFC review before any restoration to mainspace (if at all). I apologize for my tardiness in commenting here. I have been battling an energy-draining flu for the past several days. BD2412 T 23:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Maito Santos – Endorse, consensus is clear that the AFD did in fact consider the new sources, found them wanting, and the participants here see nothing wrong with that assessment as e.g the the new sources are in Japanese and it's not clear that they discuss the subject of the AFD. There was some discussion of allowing draftification, some people are concerned that it would be end-running the AFD. Thus, while draftification or the writing of a new draft are not explicitly forbidden editors should probably exercise caution. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Two sources that were indepth of the subject that should allow him to pass GNG were brought up, but they were not commented on by the next two editors. ミラ P 18:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as the proper close. The appellant found two additional sources. The proper response to finding new sources should have been to Relist the AFD. The closer did Relist the AFD, and it was added to another deletion sorting list. The community, including the subsequently responding editors, did not find that the additional sources established notability. The Relist was correct, and the close after the second listing was correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: I'll clarify that the fact that some comment on the sources would've had some effect on the AFD result. ミラ P 05:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Miraclepine Are you criticizing the close, or the editors? What relief do you want? Will the right to create a Draft satisfy you? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: The close. Moving it to draft will do. ミラ P 16:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So now I'm envisaging some hypothetical Wikipedia-equivalent where AfD participants are required to comment on each provided source individually, in some bizarre counterpart to Brandolini's Law. I'm glad I don't edit that online encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 02:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with S Marshall that this is an absurd expectation. When listing the sources, ミラ should have provided an translation of an excerpt of the secondary source coverage from the source. Throwing up a source that doesn’t even use the same for the subject was worthy of being ignored. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. ミラ P 05:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - yes, potentially GNG-satisfying were provided but following a realist two further delete votes were added. The consensus is clear. Fenix down (talk) 08:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenix down: Both of them did not comment on the sources I provided, so did not debunk whether or not they counted towards GNG. ミラ P 16:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse it would definitely have been better if the two links provided were explicitly rebutted, but the two people who commented after the relist presumably didn't think they were enough to satisfy the GNG. While Google Translate does make a mess of them I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that they don't represent significant coverage. Hut 8.5 12:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hut 8.5: Why would they represent significant coverage? ミラ P 16:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as above. Consensus was clear. Giant Snowman 12:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When I translate the two offered sources, neither mentions the subject. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: The subject's name is 三渡洲舞人. ミラ P 03:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maito Miwatasu? Why the name mismatch? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: GT has a lot of hiccups, and it will always have at least one every time. Something you know when you're translating jawiki articles into enwiki. That's why someone invented copywriting. ミラ P 04:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usually I find google translations easily good enough, and a desktop computer. It's easy enough to allow for grammar troubles. Euphemisms require care. I see that Japanese names can be troublesome. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first is an interview of the subject and his family. Not independent, does not meet the GNG. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The second is not sufficient coverage of the subject, it is repeating facts (height, blood type), and the closest thing to comment ("and is eager to become the face of the world's top brands") is non-independent promotional.

This reads very much like a soccer kid who had some media coverage, and who now wants to embark on a modelling career and is seeking promotion angling off his soccer history. No. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Good close. The two mentioned sources were appropriately ignored, they are weak and GNG-failing. Properly deleted at AfD last week, found by a community discussion to be not notable. Discourage drafting a new attempt in the absence of new (post AfD) sources, and at least six months. AfD needs some respect of its result. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: Were they? I'd like to ask @DennisTheTiger, No Great Shaker, and BD2412:. ミラ P 23:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Were they? Were they ignored, yes. Appropriately? I’m saying yes, because the were foreign, and the proponent presenting them made insufficient analysis and explanation on them. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse but draft- clear consensus for deletion, but if Miraclepine thinks they can improve it, lets put it in draft and submit it. Lightburst (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse We do a terrible job with identifying significant coverage from articles that don't have a primarily English-language background. A web search brings up a decent amount on him (though my Japanese is extremely basic) and those articles probably do come close to passing WP:GNG if they don't actually pass it, but the consensus was clear and there's no other way to close that discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 08:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A trout to the appellant for wasting the time of the community in saying that the closer should have supervoted in discounting the community's ignoring of the alleged added sources. As per User:SmokeyJoe, do not provide a new draft. A barnstar https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASmokeyJoe&type=revision&diff=934643249&oldid=934016867 to User:SmokeyJoe for doing the research to discredit this appeal. This almost qualifies for salt, almost. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- NB. I would call this a close to line call. On examining the two sources, it is my judgement that they do not meet the GNG, the 1st primarily because it is a very close perspective story taking its information directly from the author interviewing the subject and his family, which makes this source "non-independent" in WP:GNG terms. Other Wikipedians disagree with this line of assessment, although I think they are wrong. Reasonable others may disagree. The 2nd source reads as promotion with negligible secondary source content, which I think is a less contentious reason for rejecting it as meeting the GNG. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as closer. No objection to refunding to draft, provided that this goes through the usual AFC review before any restoration to mainspace (if at all). I apologize for my tardiness in commenting here. I have been battling an energy-draining flu for the past several days. BD2412 T 23:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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