The closer did not explain their reasoning, but it would appear that they simply counted votes instead of discarding ones that do not comply with our notability guidelines. All of the Keep !votes are based on either the article meeting NCRIC (which isn't sufficient to establish notability) or the likelihood that SIGCOV sources exist, even though none have been found. This violates WP:SPORTCRIT #5 (which requires at least one SIGCOV source to actually be cited in the article) and WP:NRV which requires "objective, verifiable evidence" that sourcing exists. –dlthewave☎ 03:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete, per WP:LOCALCON. There is a broad consensus that sports biographies must include at least one example of significant coverage; a local consensus cannot overturn that requirement. Note that there was an effort to discuss this with the closer. BilledMammal (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe AfDs are by definition a "community consensus"; so, I'm not sure WP:LOCALCON is applicable to them. The same pretty much applies to the two DRs listed below this one as well (but I'm not going to repeat the same post there). -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant line is Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. While AfD's are a community consensus, it is among a limited group of editors at one place and time, and cannot overrule policies or guidelines which have community consensus on a wider scale. BilledMammal (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was a bit slow to respond, but I pretty much agree with what Pawnkingthree and Hut 8.5 posted below about LOCALCON in the DR about "Subroto Das". -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: Then I have the same question for you as I had for Pawnkingthree; Can you explain that a little further? We have a policy saying that local consensus cannot override consensus on a wider scale, but you are saying these local consensuses are fine?. BilledMammal (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that it's possible to argue that every consensus is essentially a "local consensus" if you base your argument on simply that it involved a limited number of editors. So, I think it's better to make the distinction based on where the consensus was established, and I think that's what LOCALCON is trying to imply. I also think that overturning the consensus to delete runs the risk of be seen (perhaps unfairly) as a WP:SUPERVOTE by whichever admin decided to to do that. It might be reasonable to request that the discussion be relisted per item 3 of WP:CLOSECHALLENGE or even start another AFD per WP:RENOM (after a reasonable amount of time has passed), but there would probably still need to be more than the same two people !voting delete and the same core group of people !voting keep for the outcome to be any different. If there's been a change in the way the notability of these types of articles is now being assessed, then trying to implement such a change community wide asap is likely going to receive resistance until the change has had time to sink in and starts to be applied at the community level. Furthermore, nominating a bunch of similar articles for deletion for essentially the same reason in order to try and "enforce" such a change is likely going to be seen (perhaps unfairly) as WP:POINTY by some and lead to even more resistence. Perhaps it might take some time for whatever change was made to trickle down to the WikiProject and AfD level and maybe it's best to try and proceed a little more slowly until then. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: It isn't about the number of editors, it is about the level of the discussion. For example, a consensus at an article - even if it involves a formal discussion with broad participation like an RfC - is below a consensus on a policy page. The same is true of consensus at a noticeboard, and a consensus at AfD. WP:DETCON speaks to this; consensus isn't a vote, but is instead determined by the quality of arguments presented, assessed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.
The reason this needs to be true is then established by the rest of your comment; the broader community has decided that it disagrees with how the editors at AfD have been assessing notability and found a consensus to change the relevant guidelines. This change now needs to be reflected at AfD and it would be disruptive to allow a small group of editors who opposed that change to stop that happening. BilledMammal (talk) 06:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I participated in both of the deletion discussions for this article - the one started in May and the one from June. This year. Both of which were closed as keep. And now in July we're at deletion review? Blimey.
So, two AfD and now a DRV in a short space of time. Good luck dealing with this one. I note as well that there is a current ArbCom discussion going on about behaviour around deletion. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse while no consensus would also have been reasonable there wasn't a consensus for deletion, and I don't think it was a good idea to start a second AfD less than a month after it was kept at AfD. Hut 8.5 12:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One Delete !vote is usually sufficient for soft delete of a stub with no SIGCOV. –dlthewave☎ 12:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is, if nobody else commented. Not when there are six valid "keep" votes as well... BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if we closed this as Delete we'd be saying that seven people supporting keeping the article made it more likely to be deleted, which is just silly. Hut 8.5 16:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11: But are there six valid "keep" votes? If WP:LOCALCON applies to AfD, and if there is broad community consensus for WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, then none of them are.
Since WP:LOCALCON applies to formal discussions that involve a consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, it applies to AfD. Thus, since there is broad community consensus for WP:SPORTSCRIT #5 none of these keep votes are valid. BilledMammal (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the Keep !votes were all complete gibberish it still wouldn't be possible to close this AfD as Delete. Hut 8.5 07:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Hut. It does also seem incredibly WP:POINTY and disruptive to keep re-nominating an article, and then going for a DRV too. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 13:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, that could not have been anything other than "keep." BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (Involved, I voted keep) Almost everyone argued to keep. The AfD followed one about a month ago that was closed WP:SNOW keep. Indeed it's not a vote, indeed minority arguments can win, but the consensus seems clearly as keep. CT55555 (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the AFD should have been speedy closed as a bad-faith re-nomination of an AFD kept with overwhelming consensus less than a month prior and no new deletion rationale, but that is beside the point. Like the first AFD, there was consensus to keep. Both the nom the sole "delete" vote cite WP:NSPORT, but their claims are successfully refuted by User:Lugnuts' vote (along with his/her argument in the first AFD). FrankAnchor 15:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The closer made a reasonable decision on closing the discussion with the views mentioned in the discussion. This seems like a personal vendetta here. Two deletion discussions and a deletion review from the same editor within a couple of months. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This seems to be another WP:POINTy renom from Dlthewave, who seems increasingly incapable of accepting any opinions which differ from their own. This renom seems to question the WP:AGF of the closer too. StickyWicket (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The appropriate conclusion from the closer after review of the AFD. At this point the gender of the third trout doesn't matter. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn local consensus cannot overturn the broader consensus that articles should not exist if there is no significant coverage of the subject in independent sources. (t · c) buidhe 23:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Policies and guidelines are subject to interpretation in each individual case, and applied to these cases by consensus. Nothing wrong with the closure. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The closer did not explain their reasoning, but it would appear that they simply counted votes instead of discarding ones that do not comply with our notability guidelines. All of the Keep !votes are based on either the article meeting NCRIC (which isn't sufficient to establish notability) or the likelihood that SIGCOV sources exist, even though none have been found. This violates WP:SPORTCRIT #5 (which requires at least one SIGCOV source to actually be cited in the article) and WP:NRV which requires "objective, verifiable evidence" that sourcing exists. –dlthewave☎ 03:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete, per WP:LOCALCON. There is a broad consensus that sports biographies must include at least one example of significant coverage; a local consensus cannot overturn that requirement. Note that there were multiple efforts to discuss this with the closer. BilledMammal (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Policies and guidelines are interpreted and applied to individual cases by consensus, and the consensus here was to keep. Endorse. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse while no consensus would also have been reasonable there wasn't a consensus for deletion, and I don't think it was a good idea to start a second AfD less than a month after it was kept at AfD. Hut 8.5 12:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Hut. It does also seem incredibly WP:POINTY and disruptive to keep re-nominating an article, and then going for a DRV too. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 13:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, that could not have been anything other than "keep." Also, I find it a bit ridiculous (for all three of these discussions) how after the first AFD was closed as "keep," dlthewave then nominated it for AFD a second time, and when that did not go his way he brought it to DRV! BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The closer made a reasonable decision on closing the discussion with the views mentioned in the discussion. This seems like a personal vendetta here. Two deletion discussions and a deletion review from the same editor within a couple of months. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The close reflected the consensus. A female ((trout)) to the appellant. These salmonids, like other vertebrates, are capable of reproduction. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The closer did not explain their reasoning, but it would appear that they simply counted votes instead of discarding ones that do not comply with our notability guidelines. All of the Keep !votes are based on either the article meeting NCRIC (which isn't sufficient to establish notability) or the likelihood that SIGCOV sources exist, even though none have been found. This violates WP:SPORTCRIT #5 (which requires at least one SIGCOV source to actually be cited in the article) and WP:NRV which requires "objective, verifiable evidence" that sourcing exists. –dlthewave☎ 03:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete, per WP:LOCALCON. There is a broad consensus that sports biographies must include at least one example of significant coverage; a local consensus cannot overturn that requirement. Note that there were multiple efforts to discuss this with the closer. BilledMammal (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as involved editor. This is all extremely disruptive. The article was nominated for deletion less than a month after a previous AfD had closed with a consensus to keep. So the arguments in that AfD should be weighed as well (and maybe they were). StAnselm (talk) 04:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - per my comments on the DRV above this:
On the issue of local consensus, there is a long established consensus, going back to the discussions around Chitty (cricketer) in 2018, that where sourcing absolutely cannot be found that we would redirect articles such as this to a suitable list. This runs through a variety of other discussions, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. James (1814 cricketer) from 2019, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Pitts (cricketer, died 1847) from 2020, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Selby (cricketer, born c.1765) from 2021, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Andrew from April 2022 and was most recently confirmed at this redirect for discussion from this month. That's a local consensus over a period of four or more years. And each of those articles are weaker by far than the one here - assuming we've even searched for any different transliterations of his name. So why on earth we'd overturn to delete I have no idea. And that's the worse case - there are pragmatic arguments in this case why we might keep this article - ethnicity, the very high probability of finding written sources if we had access to them, broadening the scope of the encyclopaedia etc... Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse while no consensus would also have been reasonable there wasn't a consensus for deletion, and I don't think it was a good idea to start a second AfD less than a month after it was kept at AfD. Hut 8.5 12:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hut 8.5: I'm struggling to see how a keep result isn't a WP:LOCALCON violation given WP:SPORTCRIT #5. Can you explain why you disagree? BilledMammal (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LOCALCON is about a WikiProject's guidelines not being able to override a wider community consensus. It's not really applicable to AfDs, all of which are "local consensus" by their very nature - the views of the participants of each one carry the day.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing else, this debate only had one person supporting deletion other than the nominator. That's not enough for a "delete" closure. Even if the debate had only consisted of the nomination and that one Delete !vote, and nobody had supported keeping the article at all, the debate still would not have been closed as Delete but as either No Consensus or soft delete. And of course those weren't the only comments, as far more people supported keeping it, so soft deletion is definitely not an option. There are situations in which the closing admin would have been justified in ignoring the participation and deleting the article anyway, but they relate to core policy problems such as BLP violations rather than sports notability guidelines.
Since there isn't any way the discussion can be closed as Delete, I don't see much point in going further, since Keep and No Consensus are the other closures and they have the same practical effect, and as I've said I don't think this AfD should have taken place in the first place. Hut 8.5 16:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hut 8.5: It appears you aren't presented an argument that the result was correct, just that there weren't sufficient votes for "delete". I disagree with that, on the basis of WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:DETCON, but I can understand where you are coming from. However, doesn't that mean to avoid WP:LOCALCON issues this closures should be overridden to no consensus, or the discussion reopened? BilledMammal (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to get into yet another argument about sports notability guidelines just in order to determine whether this AfD should be closed as Keep or No Consensus, as those have no practical difference. But if you insist, the argument that the subject's career means that sources are likely to exist and that these may not have been found due to the subject being from a non-English speaking country and being active in a pre-internet era does have some basis in WP:NEXIST, so I don't think it's fair to ignore those comments. Relisting this AfD would not be appropriate, as there was plenty of participation and there haven't been any changes late in the discussion. It isn't appropriate to relist an AfD just because you don't like the outcome and/or arguments. Hut 8.5 07:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You would be correct if WP:SPORTCRIT #5 did not exist but as it does sports biographies must have at least one example of WP:SIGCOV. If one example can be found then WP:NEXIST does allow for the article to be temporarily kept on the presumption that more can be found, but in the absence of that one example it does not. BilledMammal (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pawnkingthree: Can you explain that a little further? We have a policy saying that local consensus cannot override consensus on a wider scale, but you are saying these local consensuses are fine? BilledMammal (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Hut. It does also seem incredibly WP:POINTY and disruptive to keep re-nominating an article, and then going for a DRV too. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 13:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, good close. There was no consensus to delete. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the AFD should have been speedy closed as a bad-faith re-nomination of an AFD kept with overwhelming consensus less than a month prior and no new deletion rationale, but that is beside the point. Like the first AFD, there was consensus to keep. Both the nom the sole "delete" vote cite WP:NSPORT, but their claims are successfully refuted by User:Lugnuts' vote (along with his/her argument in the first AFD). FrankAnchor 15:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The closer made a reasonable decision on closing the discussion with the views mentioned in the discussion. This seems like a personal vendetta here. Two deletion discussions and a deletion review from the same editor within a couple of months. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The correct conclusion from the second AFD. A maletrout to the appellant. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon, on what basis do you endorse the outcome? You haven't addressed any of my points, and !votes that do not include a rationale are likely to be disregarded. –dlthewave☎ 21:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis that the closer correctly reviewed the results of the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think that it should be overturned on the basis that the closer incorrectly reviewed the results of the AFD, and I've provided P&G-based reasoning to support that. –dlthewave☎ 22:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Discussion presented strong, reasonable grounds for the existence of sourcing given the extent of play engaged. This was not refuted. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the original closure and yet more mounting evidence of Dlethewave's WP:DISRUPTIVE behaviour, whereby they cannot accept any opinions outside of theirs. StickyWicket (talk) 10:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]