Tropical cyclones in 2010 – Non-admin closure voided and discussion relisted Stifle (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Tropical cyclones in 2010 (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Improper close as Speedy Keep without a Speedy Keep rationale, request AFD to run for seven days Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC) Improper speedy keep close. Requesting Overturn of Speedy Keep, to allow AFD to run for seven days. Close was by non-administrator who had demonstrated in advance that they had a view, and therefore were entitled to !vote but were involved and should not have closed. See this post on my talk page before I nominated the article in question for AFD: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon&type=revision&diff=960867031&oldid=960618059&diffmode=source[reply] Please see Tropical cyclones in 2004, Tropical cyclones in 2010, Tropical cyclones in 2012, Tropical cyclones in 2014. The article you declined is EXACTLY THE SAME. 🐔 Chic dat There is an ongoing content dispute about what levels of detail to have articles about tropical cyclones at. I had declined Draft:Tropical cyclones in 2011. Tropical cyclones are covered by basin and year (e.g., Atlantic hurricanes in 2019), by individual storm if notable, and in an overall article covering a period of centuries. The response to my decline was the post to my talk page. I left alone the year articles that were complete, but tagged the subject article for a deletion discussion. As stated, request that the Speedy Keep be overturned and the AFD allowed to run. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Comment - By the way, if an uninvolved administrator thinks that I am wrong on the substance and that a snow closure is in order, I will accept that even if I don't like it. But in this case I think that process has been mishandled. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Relist Clear WP:BADNAC and an improper speedy. (That being said, I can't see this being deleted after a week, as the topic itself is proper.) SportingFlyer T·C 06:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Comment as non-administrator/senior editor of WPTC - Robert McClenon While I feel that Chicdat was in the wrong for closing the deletion discussion prematurely, I feel that your reasoning for opening the AFD may have been pointy. DjSolar27 decided for whatever reason to originally create the article in mainspace back on December 6, 2019, but this article was quickly moved to draft space by Cassiopeia as it was under sourced and would be better incubated in draft space. It seems that this draft had a little bit of work done to it in March, but was largely forgotten about until recently when DjSolar27 decided to submit for potential movement to main space after only doing a little bit of work to it. You fairly decided to decline this submission as it "appeared to be at a different level of detail than Wikipedia normally uses for articles on tropical cyclones as we have articles by year/basin." Chicdat then came along and decided to submit the draft for a review on June 4, without editing it further, before Eumat114 invited JavaHurricane to try and addresses your concerns. However, it appears that before Java could respond you declined the submission and opened a discussion on the talk page. Java subsequently pointed out to you that we had other yearly tropical cyclone lists but endorsed the declinement (as do I), as he didn't think the article was well developed enough. It seems that Chicdat didn't agree with your declinement and was upset about this, who as noted above pointed out that it was exactly the same sort of article. However, the capital letters at the end makes it seem like they were shouting at you and probably wound you up. Hurricanehink and Hurricane Noah as senior editors of WPTC also commented on the draft page and endorsed your declination. You then decided to nominate 2010 for deletion, thinking that WPTC doesn't want the article, that we are not working on the lists even though 2020 is as up to date as it can be. However, after three editors (including one independent from WPTC) had decided to keep the article, Chicdat wrongly decided to close the AFD.Jason Rees (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Relist - clearly WP:BADNAC; while I do think the article will stay, the close was obviously improper. Relist for procedure. Java Hurricane 06:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] I can see where the closer is coming from, the nomination is mostly focused on the fact that the article is incomplete, which isn't a valid reason for deletion. The rest of the comments are talking about a wider complaint about this type of article, rather than this one in particular. I think the best way to resolve that would be a general discussion about these articles as a group rather than nominating individual articles for deletion. Category:Tropical cyclones by year has a number of them, some of which are complete. Hut 8.5 09:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse If this is relisted it will only be a keep. We do not delete articles based on the fact that they may need cleanup or require work. At present there is no disputing the notability of the subject. Additionally any editor can AfD the article again. Was it a WP:BADNAC if it saved us valuable editor time getting to the only possible result? Perhaps. So I will WP:IAR. Lightburst (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] The deletion argument at AfD was basically WP:NUKE. And that can have some merit in extreme cases. If the article is just wrong we shouldn't have it in mainspace. In this case, I think AfD was the wrong call. But I also think a speedy keep NAC at that point wasn't even a little bit in the cards. Especially if the editor was involved. WP:PI and all that. If I were !voting at AfD, I'd have gone with "move to draft", so I think there is some value in continuing the discussion beyond just process. Articles don't need to be complete when they hit mainspace, but there should at least be a hint that when it lists no such storms for February as to the fact that isn't correct. So Overturn speedy and (re)list. Hobit (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Comment See WP:IMPERFECT Lightburst (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, I'm a big fan of that (see the story about sandcastles on my user page). But being wrong is a problem. And this appears to indicate that there were no such storms in Feb., etc. That's a problem. I like seeing stubs and small articles develop over time. But they can't be wrong. And fixing this one is non-trivial. I'd argue it belongs in draft space. Or, at the least, needs a big notice on the top saying it's under development and currently wrong. But I'd prefer draft space until it's not wrong. But that's a reasonable discussion for AfD, not DRV. Hobit (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] In line with WP:DPR#NAC, I am voiding the non-admin closure and relisting the AFD. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Tropical cyclones in 2010 – Non-admin closure voided and discussion relisted Stifle (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Improper close as Speedy Keep without a Speedy Keep rationale, request AFD to run for seven days Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC) Improper speedy keep close. Requesting Overturn of Speedy Keep, to allow AFD to run for seven days. Close was by non-administrator who had demonstrated in advance that they had a view, and therefore were entitled to !vote but were involved and should not have closed. See this post on my talk page before I nominated the article in question for AFD: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon&type=revision&diff=960867031&oldid=960618059&diffmode=source[reply]

Please see Tropical cyclones in 2004, Tropical cyclones in 2010, Tropical cyclones in 2012, Tropical cyclones in 2014. The article you declined is EXACTLY THE SAME. 🐔 Chicdat

There is an ongoing content dispute about what levels of detail to have articles about tropical cyclones at. I had declined Draft:Tropical cyclones in 2011. Tropical cyclones are covered by basin and year (e.g., Atlantic hurricanes in 2019), by individual storm if notable, and in an overall article covering a period of centuries. The response to my decline was the post to my talk page. I left alone the year articles that were complete, but tagged the subject article for a deletion discussion.

As stated, request that the Speedy Keep be overturned and the AFD allowed to run. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - By the way, if an uninvolved administrator thinks that I am wrong on the substance and that a snow closure is in order, I will accept that even if I don't like it. But in this case I think that process has been mishandled. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Clear WP:BADNAC and an improper speedy. (That being said, I can't see this being deleted after a week, as the topic itself is proper.) SportingFlyer T·C 06:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as non-administrator/senior editor of WPTC - Robert McClenon While I feel that Chicdat was in the wrong for closing the deletion discussion prematurely, I feel that your reasoning for opening the AFD may have been pointy. DjSolar27 decided for whatever reason to originally create the article in mainspace back on December 6, 2019, but this article was quickly moved to draft space by Cassiopeia as it was under sourced and would be better incubated in draft space. It seems that this draft had a little bit of work done to it in March, but was largely forgotten about until recently when DjSolar27 decided to submit for potential movement to main space after only doing a little bit of work to it. You fairly decided to decline this submission as it "appeared to be at a different level of detail than Wikipedia normally uses for articles on tropical cyclones as we have articles by year/basin." Chicdat then came along and decided to submit the draft for a review on June 4, without editing it further, before Eumat114 invited JavaHurricane to try and addresses your concerns. However, it appears that before Java could respond you declined the submission and opened a discussion on the talk page. Java subsequently pointed out to you that we had other yearly tropical cyclone lists but endorsed the declinement (as do I), as he didn't think the article was well developed enough. It seems that Chicdat didn't agree with your declinement and was upset about this, who as noted above pointed out that it was exactly the same sort of article. However, the capital letters at the end makes it seem like they were shouting at you and probably wound you up. Hurricanehink and Hurricane Noah as senior editors of WPTC also commented on the draft page and endorsed your declination. You then decided to nominate 2010 for deletion, thinking that WPTC doesn't want the article, that we are not working on the lists even though 2020 is as up to date as it can be. However, after three editors (including one independent from WPTC) had decided to keep the article, Chicdat wrongly decided to close the AFD.Jason Rees (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relist - clearly WP:BADNAC; while I do think the article will stay, the close was obviously improper. Relist for procedure. Java Hurricane 06:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where the closer is coming from, the nomination is mostly focused on the fact that the article is incomplete, which isn't a valid reason for deletion. The rest of the comments are talking about a wider complaint about this type of article, rather than this one in particular. I think the best way to resolve that would be a general discussion about these articles as a group rather than nominating individual articles for deletion. Category:Tropical cyclones by year has a number of them, some of which are complete. Hut 8.5 09:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse If this is relisted it will only be a keep. We do not delete articles based on the fact that they may need cleanup or require work. At present there is no disputing the notability of the subject. Additionally any editor can AfD the article again. Was it a WP:BADNAC if it saved us valuable editor time getting to the only possible result? Perhaps. So I will WP:IAR. Lightburst (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion argument at AfD was basically WP:NUKE. And that can have some merit in extreme cases. If the article is just *wrong* we shouldn't have it in mainspace. In this case, I think AfD was the wrong call. But I also think a speedy keep NAC at that point wasn't even a little bit in the cards. Especially if the editor was involved. WP:PI and all that. If I were !voting at AfD, I'd have gone with "move to draft", so I think there is some value in continuing the discussion beyond just process. Articles don't need to be complete when they hit mainspace, but there should at least be a hint that when it lists no such storms for February as to the fact that isn't correct. So Overturn speedy and (re)list. Hobit (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See WP:IMPERFECT Lightburst (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm a big fan of that (see the story about sandcastles on my user page). But being *wrong* is a problem. And this appears to indicate that there were no such storms in Feb., etc. That's a problem. I like seeing stubs and small articles develop over time. But they can't be wrong. And fixing this one is non-trivial. I'd argue it belongs in draft space. Or, at the least, needs a big notice on the top saying it's under development and currently wrong. But I'd prefer draft space until it's not wrong. But that's a reasonable discussion for AfD, not DRV. Hobit (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In line with WP:DPR#NAC, I am voiding the non-admin closure and relisting the AFD. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dylan Chiazor – Restore. It's unclear what the articles you've posted here is referring to but there's general agreement that we should allow the title to return, although people are haggling over the details. I went with the simplest thing and undeleted Dylan Chiazor. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Dylan Chiazor (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) The article was originally deleted on the grounds that is did not meet WP:NFOOTY since the player had not made his competitive debut. However, this has now changed since he played for De Graafschap in a KNVB Cup match against Vitesse, therefore satisfying WP:NFOOTY as he has appeared in a competitive match between two teams form fully professional leagues. Therefore, Dylan Chiazor is now considered notable and the article should be restored. SFletcher06 (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] @SFletcher06: You can just go ahead and recreate the articles you've posted here since the reason for deletion no longer applies, you don't need a formal DRV unless the articles have been salted for some reason? SportingFlyer T·C 23:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] @SportingFlyer: Apologies - I'm not very familiar with DRV. I suppose this probably falls under the last point on when a DRV should not be used upon re-reading it. SFletcher06 (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Permit Draftification - This is Deletion Review Reason 3 by a filer who believes that reason 3 is a reason for Deletion Review. If it isn't a reason for Deletion Review, change the list of reasons. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] (the deleting admin) Article was not salted, so this can just be undeleted or recreated if it meets NFOOTY; I don't have any objection. I would weakly object to draftification for the reasons mentioned at User:Paul_012/Drafts are broken, but it's a matter of personal preference. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] The close was fine, but now we should Restore. I'm not sure why, User:SportingFlyer we'd want to encourage the page to be rebuilt from scratch, rather than just using the existing deleted page. That sounds like more work than necessary. Nfitz (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Dylan Chiazor – Restore. It's unclear what the articles you've posted here is referring to but there's general agreement that we should allow the title to return, although people are haggling over the details. I went with the simplest thing and undeleted Dylan Chiazor. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was originally deleted on the grounds that is did not meet WP:NFOOTY since the player had not made his competitive debut. However, this has now changed since he played for De Graafschap in a KNVB Cup match against Vitesse, therefore satisfying WP:NFOOTY as he has appeared in a competitive match between two teams form fully professional leagues. Therefore, Dylan Chiazor is now considered notable and the article should be restored. SFletcher06 (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SFletcher06: You can just go ahead and recreate the articles you've posted here since the reason for deletion no longer applies, you don't need a formal DRV unless the articles have been salted for some reason? SportingFlyer T·C 23:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: Apologies - I'm not very familiar with DRV. I suppose this probably falls under the last point on when a DRV should not be used upon re-reading it. SFletcher06 (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Permit Draftification - This is Deletion Review Reason 3 by a filer who believes that reason 3 is a reason for Deletion Review. If it isn't a reason for Deletion Review, change the list of reasons. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(the deleting admin) Article was not salted, so this can just be undeleted or recreated if it meets NFOOTY; I don't have any objection. I would weakly object to draftification for the reasons mentioned at User:Paul_012/Drafts are broken, but it's a matter of personal preference. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The close was fine, but now we should Restore. I'm not sure why, User:SportingFlyer we'd want to encourage the page to be rebuilt from scratch, rather than just using the existing deleted page. That sounds like more work than necessary. Nfitz (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jonathan Vergara Berrio – Restore. Just like Dylan Chiazor, above. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jonathan Vergara Berrio (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Like with Dylan Chiazor, it was deleted on the grounds that it failed WP:NFOOTY. This article now meets WP:NFOOTY since he has made an Eerste Divisie appearance for De Graafschap, and the Eerste Divisie is a fully professional league, meaning the article now meets the notability guidelines. [1] SFletcher06 (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Permit Draftification - This is Deletion Review Reason 3 by a filer who believes that reason 3 is a reason for Deletion Review. If it isn't a reason for Deletion Review, change the list of reasons. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] (the deleting admin) As with above, the article was not salted, so this can just be undeleted or recreated if it meets NFOOTY; I don't have any objection. I would weakly object to draftification for the reasons mentioned at User:Paul_012/Drafts are broken, but it's a matter of personal preference. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] The close was fine, but now we should Restore. Might be best to request these directly to the closing Admin, or at WP:Refund. Nfitz (talk) 00:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Happy with the venue and as the nominator has demonstrated the notability guidelines are clearly met, permit restoration. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] He's a 21 year old who's played like half an hour of professional football. Once again Wikipedia's amazingly low bar for notability of athletes sticks in my craw. He's way short of a GNG pass.—S Marshall T/C 23:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] @S Marshall: - you seem to be opposing restoration on the grounds that you disagree with the notability guidelines. Coverage of the player is a bit weak, but this is a nice, reliable secondary source and there is concencus at WikiProject Football that players at the start of their careers should be given more leeway. SFletcher06 (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] My longstanding position has been that specific notability guidelines ("SNGs") shouldn't and can't trump the General Notability Guideline ("GNG"). I'm not surprised to hear that WikiProject Football has reached consensus that articles within the scope of WikiProject Football should be allowed more leeway -- they've certainly done that before -- but with the greatest of respect it's not their decision. Discussions like this one that's currently taking place on WT:N demonstrate what the mood music is among the rest of the community and I would welcome your participation there. Let me give you some examples to illustrate exactly how crazily out of whack NFOOTY is with what the rest of the encyclopaedia does. Category:English physicists has 285 entries; Category:English footballers has 21,875 entries.Category:English chemists has 286 entries; Category:Footballers from County Durham, by itself, has 385. And it's not just football, either. The amount of effort and accomplishment you need to be a notable athlete is insanely lower than in any other field of human endeavour. I'm British, and my country is far more notable for its scientific, cultural and naval achievements than its sporting ones. Why have we got 1,240 pages in Category:Olympic athletes of Great Britain and only 79 pages in Category:English admirals? WikiProject Military History doesn't seem less active than WikiProject Football. The difference is how ludicrously permissive NSPORTS is.—S Marshall T/C 12:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Jonathan Vergara Berrio – Restore. Just like Dylan Chiazor, above. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Like with Dylan Chiazor, it was deleted on the grounds that it failed WP:NFOOTY. This article now meets WP:NFOOTY since he has made an Eerste Divisie appearance for De Graafschap, and the Eerste Divisie is a fully professional league, meaning the article now meets the notability guidelines. [1] SFletcher06 (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Permit Draftification - This is Deletion Review Reason 3 by a filer who believes that reason 3 is a reason for Deletion Review. If it isn't a reason for Deletion Review, change the list of reasons. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(the deleting admin) As with above, the article was not salted, so this can just be undeleted or recreated if it meets NFOOTY; I don't have any objection. I would weakly object to draftification for the reasons mentioned at User:Paul_012/Drafts are broken, but it's a matter of personal preference. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The close was fine, but now we should Restore. Might be best to request these directly to the closing Admin, or at WP:Refund. Nfitz (talk) 00:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with the venue and as the nominator has demonstrated the notability guidelines are clearly met, permit restoration. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He's a 21 year old who's played like half an hour of professional football. Once again Wikipedia's amazingly low bar for notability of athletes sticks in my craw. He's way short of a GNG pass.—S Marshall T/C 23:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall: - you seem to be opposing restoration on the grounds that you disagree with the notability guidelines. Coverage of the player is a bit weak, but this is a nice, reliable secondary source and there is concencus at WikiProject Football that players at the start of their careers should be given more leeway. SFletcher06 (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My longstanding position has been that specific notability guidelines ("SNGs") shouldn't and can't trump the General Notability Guideline ("GNG"). I'm not surprised to hear that WikiProject Football has reached consensus that articles within the scope of WikiProject Football should be allowed more leeway -- they've certainly done that before -- but with the greatest of respect it's not their decision. Discussions like this one that's currently taking place on WT:N demonstrate what the mood music is among the rest of the community and I would welcome your participation there.
Let me give you some examples to illustrate exactly how crazily out of whack NFOOTY is with what the rest of the encyclopaedia does. Category:English physicists has 285 entries; Category:English footballers has 21,875 entries.Category:English chemists has 286 entries; Category:Footballers from County Durham, by itself, has 385. And it's not just football, either. The amount of effort and accomplishment you need to be a notable athlete is insanely lower than in any other field of human endeavour. I'm British, and my country is far more notable for its scientific, cultural and naval achievements than its sporting ones. Why have we got 1,240 pages in Category:Olympic athletes of Great Britain and only 79 pages in Category:English admirals? WikiProject Military History doesn't seem less active than WikiProject Football. The difference is how ludicrously permissive NSPORTS is.—S Marshall T/C 12:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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