Lemusa Alatasi – Overturn to delete. There's clear consensus here that the people arguing to keep failed to show that the WP:SIGCOV was met. As one editor suggested in the AfD, if somebody believes better sources can be found, this can always be restored to their userspace or draftspace where they can work on improving it. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC) -- RoySmith (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Lemusa Alatasi (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) There were exactly five keep votes in this AFD. The very first one cited WP:NFOOTY as a reason to keep, which is now a criteria that has been phased out and is therefore invalid. All other votes just said "notable person, without citing why" or "needs work", all invalid reasons to keep an article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] Endorse "There is no grandfather policy" is just as devoid of substantive meaning, and comes across as somewhat antagonistic. There's simply not consensus there; I think either keep or delete would have been wrong conclusions, and relisting about the only acceptable option to no consensus. Jclemens (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to delete. The arguments in favour of deletion were the only ones solidly based in policies and guidelines. The keep arguments were 3 rejections of the recent NSPORT RFC (and subsequent consensus changes to NSPORT) and 2 unsupported bare assertions of notability – best summarised as "I don't like that" (SNG changes) and "is notable" – such arguments should not be given much (if any) weight in the face of the delete arguments which clearly cited notability guidelines and demonstrated why these were not met, and were not countered. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] Endorse the keep votes correctly point out that with a recently changed policy, tagging the article is a more appropriate option than deleting the article, while the delete votes correctly point out that there is not currently the SIGCOV needed for GNG passage. So no consensus is the way to go. As the AFD was well attended, a realist wouldn’t establish consensus. Carson Wentz (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] the keep votes correctly point out that with a recently changed policy, tagging the article is a more appropriate option than deleting the article, -- except that, as multiple editors pointed out, there is no grandfather clause for old articles and the editor alleging that there was refused to provide evidence. JoelleJay (talk) 05:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to delete Clear source-based evidence from the delete voters that the topic isn't notable, no evidence from the keep side showing otherwise. Avilich (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] Endorse The fact that you disagree with the keep !votes does not mean there was consensus to delete here. I'd probably have !voted to delete but this is a reasonable close based on the discussion that took place. DRV does not exist to relitigate the same arguments that took place at AfD and any attempts to do that here should be disregarded. Smartyllama (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] No-one here has tried to relitigate the AFD. It is the weighting (and validity) of the arguments that is being disputed. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] weak Endorse A) I think that we should have a process for dealing with articles that did meet our inclusion guidelines and now do not. B) there was no consensus. However, unless better sources can be found it appears we have consensus our current guidelines are not met in the article as it stands. The only question is what process to follow for those articles. So I'd urge both sides to agree on a process that deals with this and, I'd hope, allows us to get all articles in question to either be improved or deleted in the next (say) 12 months. Hobit (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] There is only "no consensus" if you completely ignore ROUGHCONSENSUS... Where did any of the keep !votes make an argument based on P&Gs or logic or really anything that isn't literally an ATA? Grandfather clauses were rejected by !voters at the main RfC and the followups, just because a small cohort of editors deliberately ignores one of the most global and decisive consensuses we've had doesn't mean they get to exert an invalid LOCALCON at every AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. There are valid arguments on both sides to keep and delete. I sense that the delete side feels like guidance is on their side, and I think it is, but it's also OK for people to make logical arguments that don't align with guidance as per WP:5P5. In that context, there was valid arguments on both side, and no consensus. CT55555 (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] By this reasoning, literally every argument is valid and there is no reason whatsoever to have guidelines or a deletion policy or even a concept of "consensus" at all. I'd really like to see what you think an illogical argument would be if not one that relies on reasons explicitly rejected by enormous consensus for being illogical. JoelleJay (talk) 05:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to delete. There were exactly zero policy-based arguments provided for keeping the page, while there were several arguments for deleting the page that had firm basis in WP:DEL-REASON. That the closer saw that there were 5 !votes one way and 4 !votes the other way is not a valid basis for closing it as no consensus per se; consensus is not ascertained by bean counting but instead bythe quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. And, I will remind folks that NFOOTY was eliminated by community consensus and a consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to delete. There were no valid arguments from the keep side, like it is actually remarkable how devoid of any P&G-based reasoning those !votes were... The single thoughtful attempt at expanding on keep reasoning still failed to even acknowledge the NSPORT requirement for SIGCOV to be sourced in the article, and did not offer any evidence to support their assertion that newspapers could be expected to contain SIGCOV. This was a very clear delete and quite a good example of the type of protracted disruptive AfD participation that the ArbCom RfC will hopefully address. JoelleJay (talk) 04:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to delete. As explained by the DRV nominator and above, the "keep" opinions in this AfD were unfounded in applicable inclusion guidelines, and should therefore have been discounted by the closer. Sandstein 09:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to delete as a re-read of the AFD shows no policy-based arguments for keeping, focusing on procedural pleas that aren't how Wikipedia works. Jontesta (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to delete <involved> essentially per JoelleJay and Red-tailed hawk. Most of the keep !votes are at odds with the global-consensus sigcov requirement, so the closer should have discounted them and closed as delete. This is a pretty clear example of a case where the numbers are evenly split but the strength of argument points decisively in one direction, in my view. As an aside, if there's no consensus to overturn, I'd support a relist to attract additional policy-and-guideline-based participation. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to delete - closer has every right to give more weight to arguments that are supported by policy and/or guidelines. It's quite clear from the discussion that those in favour of keep were offering, at best, 'procedural keep' arguments whereas those in favour of deletion were pointing out that the nominator's assertion that the subject fails GNG was not appropriately countered at any point. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to delete - there was no substantial refutation of the failure to satisfy SIGCOV or the GNG. Unlike, for example, cricket in South Asia, where a claim to non-English/English pre-internet offline sources would have greater plausibility, a single claim here to offline internet-era sources is weak and not enough to counter-balance the weight of lack of SIGCOV/GNG statements. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to delete - A lot (maybe even all) of Keep votes failed to formulate a valid enough argument (the closest being Savant's vote, if not for the fact the article had already existed for more than a year). Closing AFDs is not a vote count, but measuring up which arguments were stronger. Here, it is clear that Keep voters failed to counter the main nominator's angle: the failure of meeting WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Lemusa Alatasi – Overturn to delete. There's clear consensus here that the people arguing to keep failed to show that the WP:SIGCOV was met. As one editor suggested in the AfD, if somebody believes better sources can be found, this can always be restored to their userspace or draftspace where they can work on improving it. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC) -- RoySmith (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

There were exactly five keep votes in this AFD. The very first one cited WP:NFOOTY as a reason to keep, which is now a criteria that has been phased out and is therefore invalid. All other votes just said "notable person, without citing why" or "needs work", all invalid reasons to keep an article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse "There is no grandfather policy" is just as devoid of substantive meaning, and comes across as somewhat antagonistic. There's simply not consensus there; I think either keep or delete would have been wrong conclusions, and relisting about the only acceptable option to no consensus. Jclemens (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. The arguments in favour of deletion were the only ones solidly based in policies and guidelines. The keep arguments were 3 rejections of the recent NSPORT RFC (and subsequent consensus changes to NSPORT) and 2 unsupported bare assertions of notability – best summarised as "I don't like that" (SNG changes) and "is notable" – such arguments should not be given much (if any) weight in the face of the delete arguments which clearly cited notability guidelines and demonstrated why these were not met, and were not countered. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the keep votes correctly point out that with a recently changed policy, tagging the article is a more appropriate option than deleting the article, while the delete votes correctly point out that there is not currently the SIGCOV needed for GNG passage. So no consensus is the way to go. As the AFD was well attended, a realist wouldn’t establish consensus. Carson Wentz (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the keep votes correctly point out that with a recently changed policy, tagging the article is a more appropriate option than deleting the article, -- except that, as multiple editors pointed out, there is no grandfather clause for old articles and the editor alleging that there was refused to provide evidence. JoelleJay (talk) 05:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete Clear source-based evidence from the delete voters that the topic isn't notable, no evidence from the keep side showing otherwise. Avilich (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The fact that you disagree with the keep !votes does not mean there was consensus to delete here. I'd probably have !voted to delete but this is a reasonable close based on the discussion that took place. DRV does not exist to relitigate the same arguments that took place at AfD and any attempts to do that here should be disregarded. Smartyllama (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No-one here has tried to relitigate the AFD. It is the weighting (and validity) of the arguments that is being disputed. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
weak Endorse A) I think that we should have a process for dealing with articles that did meet our inclusion guidelines and now do not. B) there was no consensus. However, unless better sources can be found it appears we have consensus our current guidelines are not met in the article as it stands. The only question is what process to follow for those articles. So I'd urge both sides to agree on a process that deals with this and, I'd hope, allows us to get all articles in question to either be improved or deleted in the next (say) 12 months. Hobit (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is only "no consensus" if you completely ignore ROUGHCONSENSUS... Where did any of the keep !votes make an argument based on P&Gs or logic or really anything that isn't literally an ATA? Grandfather clauses were rejected by !voters at the main RfC and the followups, just because a small cohort of editors deliberately ignores one of the most global and decisive consensuses we've had doesn't mean they get to exert an invalid LOCALCON at every AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. There are valid arguments on both sides to keep and delete. I sense that the delete side feels like guidance is on their side, and I think it is, but it's also OK for people to make logical arguments that don't align with guidance as per WP:5P5. In that context, there was valid arguments on both side, and no consensus. CT55555 (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By this reasoning, literally every argument is valid and there is no reason whatsoever to have guidelines or a deletion policy or even a concept of "consensus" at all. I'd really like to see what you think an illogical argument would be if not one that relies on reasons explicitly rejected by enormous consensus for being illogical. JoelleJay (talk) 05:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to delete. There were exactly zero policy-based arguments provided for keeping the page, while there were several arguments for deleting the page that had firm basis in WP:DEL-REASON. That the closer saw that there were 5 !votes one way and 4 !votes the other way is not a valid basis for closing it as no consensus per se; consensus is not ascertained by bean counting but instead bythe quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. And, I will remind folks that NFOOTY was eliminated by community consensus and a consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. There were no valid arguments from the keep side, like it is actually remarkable how devoid of any P&G-based reasoning those !votes were... The single thoughtful attempt at expanding on keep reasoning still failed to even acknowledge the NSPORT requirement for SIGCOV to be sourced in the article, and did not offer any evidence to support their assertion that newspapers could be expected to contain SIGCOV. This was a very clear delete and quite a good example of the type of protracted disruptive AfD participation that the ArbCom RfC will hopefully address. JoelleJay (talk) 04:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. As explained by the DRV nominator and above, the "keep" opinions in this AfD were unfounded in applicable inclusion guidelines, and should therefore have been discounted by the closer. Sandstein 09:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete as a re-read of the AFD shows no policy-based arguments for keeping, focusing on procedural pleas that aren't how Wikipedia works. Jontesta (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete <involved> essentially per JoelleJay and Red-tailed hawk. Most of the keep !votes are at odds with the global-consensus sigcov requirement, so the closer should have discounted them and closed as delete. This is a pretty clear example of a case where the numbers are evenly split but the strength of argument points decisively in one direction, in my view. As an aside, if there's no consensus to overturn, I'd support a relist to attract additional policy-and-guideline-based participation. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete - closer has every right to give more weight to arguments that are supported by policy and/or guidelines. It's quite clear from the discussion that those in favour of keep were offering, at best, 'procedural keep' arguments whereas those in favour of deletion were pointing out that the nominator's assertion that the subject fails GNG was not appropriately countered at any point. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete - there was no substantial refutation of the failure to satisfy SIGCOV or the GNG. Unlike, for example, cricket in South Asia, where a claim to non-English/English pre-internet offline sources would have greater plausibility, a single claim here to offline internet-era sources is weak and not enough to counter-balance the weight of lack of SIGCOV/GNG statements. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete - A lot (maybe even all) of Keep votes failed to formulate a valid enough argument (the closest being Savant's vote, if not for the fact the article had already existed for more than a year). Closing AFDs is not a vote count, but measuring up which arguments were stronger. Here, it is clear that Keep voters failed to counter the main nominator's angle: the failure of meeting WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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