[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 July 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2024 July 4
2024 July 6 >

5 July 2024[edit]

List of NCAA Division III independents football records[edit]

List of NCAA Division III independents football records (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'm not sure what should be done here. If the closer really felt that the keep votes should have been discounted as mentioned and that there was "a clear consensus to delete", then it should be deleted. The given merge target was only suggested by one person and thus feels like a supervote. Moreover, the given target very clearly won't support the giant off-topic stats dump that this would bring to it. As desperate as relists can be sometimes, maybe that would be better here to get some more eyes on this. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment as the closer: if the appellant isn't sure what should be done, what is the remedy being sought here? When Delete is a valid outcome, and the content isn't in violation of policy, then both Redirect and Merge are valid alternatives. My use of "selective merge" in the result makes it clear there is no intention to include all, or even any of the content in the target, which may simply degenerate into a Redirect. The choice of what, if any, to merge is an editorial--not an administrative--one. There's no harm in relisting, and I had likely done so myself had the appellant contacted me directly prior to filing this DRV. But as said, it's not clear this is what they want, and I don't believe an outright deletion is correct with a valid ATD. Owen× ☎ 13:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was being generous with the relist suggestion. ATD doesn't require that you avoid a "delete" outcome if it's called for. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    True, ATD doesn't require avoiding deletion, it merely allows it, and I exercised my prerogative to pick an ATD that was minimally destructive. If you are arguing for deletion, as you now seem to be, please show us which part of the article's content violates policy to the point where it requires deletion. Owen× ☎ 14:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse-ish, I personally would have closed it as N/C, but a merger is an editorial action and not an admin one so it's one anyone could have taken, including OwenX following the close. While there wasn't support for retention as a standalone, nor was there a case that the information needed removal-just relocation. I don't see this as a super vote so there's nothing wrong with the close which certainly falls within closer discretion. Star Mississippi 14:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - not a single participant !voted "merge". This wasn't a close, it was a super vote. Absolutely unacceptable close. Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you may have missed Jweiss' unbolded merge suggestion (I did too at first) Star Mississippi 17:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I saw that. But it wasn't even their preferred stance, let alone the consensus of the discussion on a whole. Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The closing statement correctly dismissed the keep votes, which were primarily based in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, showing a policy-based consensus to not keep the standalone article. Merging was suggested by one user and there was no stated opposition to a merge from the delete voters. Frank Anchor 02:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (to Redirect, with history available to optionally merge‎ to NCAA Division III independent schools). Unless the closer immediately performs the merge. AfD consensus to merge requires a strong proponent of the merge who has a plan for how to do the merge. Leaving the article with that tag on top is a pretty poor presentation to readers. AfD should not be used as an alternative to Requested merges but with imaginary fairies who will complete the merge. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. It doesn't matter. AfD "redirect" (the usual "redirect" outcome whereby history remains accessible) and "merge" are the same. If the outcome is "redirect" the content from history can be copied, and if someone does that, that will constitute a merger. If the outcome is "merge" and the page is not initially replaced with a redirect, the would-be performer of the suggested merge can decide to replace the page with a redirect saying "there's noting to merge after all, as this content according to my independent editorial judgement does not belong on the suggested target page". The latter can be followed by someone copying all or some of the content from history and adding it to the suggested target article, and this can be contested by reverting that addition, and that makes for a regular content dispute which is resolved by identifying the minimum of transferable items, and through incremental editing. No need for a DRV.—Alalch E. 21:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It does matter. “Redirect” means the page is no longer live. “Merge” means that the page remains as before, except with a variation of a mergeto tag, indefinitely. The “Merge” result is functionally the same as a “No consensus” result. If it was a “no consensus”, it should be closed as “no consensus”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it functionally the same as "no consensus", when, in the end, an AfD "merge" equally turns the page into a redirect as the "redirect" outcome, with the only difference that there is not a set time for doing it after closure and tagging. But there is a general expectation that it will be done. It's not like someone can say "okay, well, this shouldn't be merged after all, in my opinion, so I will remove the merging tag, and the AfD should be interpreted as a 'no consensus' discussion from now on"; or: they can unilaterally remove the tag but only if something significant is done with the content while the page is tagged, which is claimed to address the cause for the AfD's outcome -- equivalent to how an article can be restored from a redirect, given a reasonable effort, which can be contested in a new AfD. —Alalch E. 22:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    “Merge” doesn’t turn the page into a redirect. It leaves the page as it was but with a new tag on top. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which has to resolve into the page being turned into a redirect. It can't resolve into the status quo ante with the article staying the same as it was sans tag. (It can however, resolve into the article being relevantly changed and kept, which is the same as restoring the article from a redirect; that's a rarer scenario, not the primarily intended thing to happen.) —Alalch E. 23:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it does not have to resolve. And with not a single editor having expressed a wish to do the merge, it was a bad close. I read a consensus as per by bold !vote. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I do a zero-byte merger now by copying the content over to the target article and self-reverting and redirecting the source article (one way to do it; another way would be to say in the summary at the source article: "redirect - nothing to merge as none of this content makes the target article better, and no one else has identified any such content"), that redirection can't simply be undone, and has the same status as a redirection from a "redirect" AfD. —Alalch E. 23:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You could do that zero byte merge, but it would be an independent editorial action. It would not reflect the close and could be reverted at any time on that basis. A zero byte merge is called a redirect, and the close does not say redirect. The Keep or Merge !voter, or anyone agreeing with them, would be justified in reverting you. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A merger is at least two actions, one on each side. Anything that happens at the target side is an independent editorial action but the redirection at the source article isn't: the page stops being a live article per the AfD consensus that the page should not be retained as a standalone page; that's one part of the "merge" outcome. That part of the merger is fixed. The variable part is what exactly happens to the target article. That's the area of normal editorial decision-making. The editor unhappy with what if anything was merged can make the desired changes themselves by copying the content over from history under the redirect and by simply editing it. There's never a need to undo the redirection. —Alalch E. 12:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist – I intend to participate – or overturn to no consensus and allow renomination. Closing as merge was a WP:Supervote (essay) with aspects of both "Forced-compromise" and "Left-field".
    1. The AfD was relisted once, and two relists are permitted by WP:Deletion process#Relisting discussions (guideline, shortcut WP:RELIST).
    2. As 35.139.154.158 and Sergecross73 wrote above, Jweiss11 suggested merging without justification or bolding. The recommendations of WP:Merge what? (essay) were not followed.
    3. Since OwenX gave merge extra weight, I expect him to have checked that it was reasonable or, in his words, "valid". I skimmed the articles and identified obvious issues in two minutes, and I confirmed them in a few minutes more.
      1. List of NCAA Division III independents football records is a historical list of season records going back to 1973. Very few schools are included in recent years: 2024, 2023, and 2022 each list one or two teams.
      2. NCAA Division III independent schools is the current list of independent schools. The Football section contains only Maine Maritime Academy, which is highlighted in pink because it will join the Commonwealth Coast Conference in 2025. No records are included for any sport. There is a historical list of former full (all sports) independents under Former members.
      3. A comprehensive merge would create WP:WEIGHT (shortcut to WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight, policy) problems. Merging only 2024 would have the same problems, only less pronounced.
    4. If no content is merged, I believe the redirect would be deleted at WP:Redirects for discussion as "not mentioned at target".
    5. If the merge outcome is not overturned, a merge discussion to reject merging the content and another deletion discussion will be required.
    6. Deleting List of NCAA Division III independents football records has a low cost, as recreating it from scratch would be easy. It's boilerplate and transcluded Category:NCAA Division III football independents standings templates formatted in a table. Side note: template transclusions are not creative content requiring attribution per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed (guideline, shortcut WP:NOATT).
    Flatscan (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Two follow-up comments:
    1. This is Jweiss11's recommendation at the AfD: Keep per Thetreesarespeakingtome. At the very least, this article could be merged to NCAA Division III independent schools. It includes no details beyond the destination's title and makes no argument for merging, so it should be given very little weight toward a merge outcome.
    2. Regarding WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion (policy, shortcut WP:ATD), I wrote a policy and consensus analysis that Alternatives to deletion are not preferred over deletion in July 2022. There have been subsequent discussions, but no material policy changes.
    Flatscan (talk) 04:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Admins making ATD decisions consistent with the points made, rather than bolded !votes, in a discussion are not supervoting. They're doing their policy-based job by determining the rough consensus. Jclemens (talk) 06:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - As Jclemens says, Merge is a valid alternative to deletion based on the comments in the AFD. It is true, as SmokeyJoe implies, that Merge can be a problematic ATD because it leaves the merging to be done by gnomes. (We don't know whether to believe in fairies, but we know that gnomes are very real and do a lot of useful work.) That is, closing admins are given an option that can be incomplete. That is a policy issue that doesn't need to prevent admins from following standard closing instructions and selecting Merge. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Down-ball[edit]

Down-ball (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closer did not allow adequate time for new voices to engage in discussion after AfD was re-listed for that express purpose. Closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly Rockycape (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • You do not appear to have discussed this with or notified @Drmies. The latter is required. That said, endorse. It ran more than sufficient time after it was relisted on 28 June. Please do not bludgeon this discussion as you did the AfD.Star Mississippi 03:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've pinged Drmies as I was unable to add to Drmies User Talk due to restrictions Rockycape (talk) 03:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Star Mississippi: I thought this too (and originally drafted a reply to the user on my talk page that pointed them to Drmies' user talk page), but in their defence Drmies' user talk page is ECP so they can't edit it. It was discussed with Drmies here instead: User talk:Rockycape#Nomination of Down-ball for deletion. It is for this reason I assume they couldn't post the talk page notification either. Daniel (talk) 04:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    After the AfD was re-listed it was not the length of time (one week) that was the issue per se but it was that re-listing for one week did not result in any new voices. Closing did not allow adequate time for new voices to engage in discussion of AfD. Rockycape (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's allowed as part of the discussion here I'd like to raise the following point. "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article." was not discussed on the Down-ball page. This was a new page and would have benefitted from time to develop. Before being listed AfD this author would have very much appreciated being given more time to develop the article. Rockycape (talk) 05:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "20 June 2024 Rockycape created page Draft:Down-ball": This means the page existed for approximately two weeks. The expectation that a newcomer has two weeks grace to get a newly created page up to scratch is not reasonable.Rockycape (talk) 05:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. You should have gotten it up to scratch before putting it in mainspace. —Cryptic 07:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree in principle about putting a draft together first. Have you seen the complexity of trying to follow the processes? The Deletion Review for example is not that straight forward. Rockycape (talk) 00:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussions are not relisted indefinitely until a preferred outcome is attained. I'd support a restoration to draft with a lock on moving if an independent editor thinks sources actually exist. @Rockycape I really think you should edit about something else.
    Thanks @Daniel for the correction on not advising the closer. My error. Star Mississippi 13:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Star Mississippi I get why you would say that I should edit about something else. I'm also passionate about Tennis, Pickleball, Table-tennis. All those sports are already well covered. It is is my other passion Down-ball that we are discussing here. It certainly would be easier to edit on other topics than Down-ball. Rockycape (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – The AfD was properly closed. The policy-based comments were quite consistent in saying that the article's sources were insufficient to distinguish that there was a specific game distinct from other similar and similarly named games and thus the offered sources failed to establish notability. If new sources were to be discovered, it would be possible to create a new draft based on them, but it should not be accepted into mainspace until the issues brought up at this AfD are properly considered. My involvement was at IRC channel #wikipedia-en-help where a question was raised about behavior of another editor. I read through the AfD at that time and saw no reason to pile on. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two earliest revisions, which had been happily living as a redirect to Four square since 2006, should be restored, since they're unrelated to the article properly deleted at afd. (It can then be sent to RFD to determine whether Downball is a better target.) —Cryptic 07:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've undeleted those two revisions. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vacate and re-close by an admin in good standing. Locking out your Talk page from an entire class of editors is effectively a request for desysop, per WP:ADMINACCT. As with a compromised admin account, any administrative action taken by such an account can be reverted by any uninvolved admin acting in their independent capacity, with a notice left on WP:BN. If you're tired of interacting with the editing public, you are no longer an admin. Changed to Endorse after reviewing the exchange with the appellant that resulted from them emailing the closing admin. Thank you, Star Mississippi, for moderating this.
As for the substance of the appeal, it is without merit. WP:RELIST clearly spells it out: A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined, without necessarily waiting for another seven days. There is no need to keep that AfD open just to give the appellant more time to bludgeon participants. Owen× ☎ 10:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was an involved editor and have been dealing with the requester's sealioning at my talk page for the past few days, so I'll refrain from offering a !vote in this review, but I do believe the closer interpreted the consensus correctly. I will point out that despite the requester's protestations of being a "newcomer" and invocation of WP:DNBTN, they have been editing since 2018 and in every discussion seems unwilling to understand core Wikipedia policies on WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR, which is why the page was worthy of deletion and why they were unable to persuade other editors. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are an SPA only here to promote this game (and badger editors about it), which is why I believe we'll need an edit/move lock if this goes to draft space. Star Mississippi 14:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is as good a place as any to refute accusations of being a badger-er. In real life I'm passionate about Down-ball (school yard game played against a wall). That's it in a nutshell. As per your suggestion stopping someone from edit/move in advance of something going into the draft space seems like over-reach. Rockycape (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    stopping someone from edit/move in advance of something going into the draft space seems like over-reach it's not, because you continue to badger and prove you don't respect the community consensus that Down-ball is not notable. The alternative is you losing any access to edit it. Star Mississippi 00:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. After reading through the lengthy discussion which includes a lot of back-and-forth (including some bludgeoning by Rockycape), I observed there is only one “delete” vote outside of the nom, therefore can not be consensus to delete. If all of the keep/ATD votes are discarded, there is not a WP:QUORUM to delete, and would have to be closed as no consensus or relisted (not eligible for soft delete as it was previously prodded by the AFD nominator). Add in support for redirect, there is a quorum supporting this page not being kept as a standalone article. Consensus to delete or redirect could come with further discussion, thereby making relist my preferred option, though I would also support an overturn to redirect. Frank Anchor 14:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect added by McMatter is a reasonable outcome, largely per Cryptic above. So changing my !vote to neutral. Frank Anchor 18:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - There were only 2 options to interpret the policy based points in that discussion delete or redirect. The deletion has occurred and it can once again be redirected to one of the other games which both claim to be same game but yet not. I would also support moving the article to the draft space, that is technically outside the scope of this discussion. @Rockycape the constant badgering, didn't help your case at all and it is probably time to go through the WP:AFC process or move on to other topics. The only 2 keep votes were WP:IKNOWIT or WP:ILIKEIT votes and had zero bearing on the discussion. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a side note I have since re-added the redirect back to Downball McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mcmatter: Down-ball now redirects to Downball. As this is a Deletion review on Down-ball, making Down-ball redirect to Downball is over-reach of this Deletion review. I am objecting to this because it has the effect of burying Down-ball and shortcutting any discussion of whether this adds or detracts from both Downball page and Down-ball (Draft) page which I plan to recreate if not restricted from doing so. Rockycape (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please undo redirect from Down-ball to Downball. I do not see any benefit other than burying Down-ball (Draft) page Rockycape (talk) 03:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rockycape, not one thing in your statements above is factual or correct. If a suitable version is drafted, then all of this can be overcome fairly easily and nothing I have done is technically out of process. Follow the WP:AFC process and the team there will be able to get everything situated that needs to be. Once again I recommend you stop replying to everyone's comments and let the community do it's thing without your continued badgering. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 04:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In one foul swoop you both refute everything in my statements above and try to reference my arguments as badgering. I will state my argument more compellingly. By redirecting Down-ball to Downball prevents someone from easitly recreating the Down-ball (draft) page as it adds the task of removing the redirect. McMatter's action shows how someone who is savvy with wikipedia can put up additional steps to frustrate another editors intended actions. I am deliberately avoiding casting aspersions on McMatter as I cannot know there motivation but the impact of their actions remains. Rockycape (talk) 04:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I should add that you took action and reported it here in this Deletion Review. If it's ok for you to take action out of process and mention it here then it is fair game for me to take issue with your actions. Finally please refrain from labelling my discussion points here as badgering as this is the current Deletion Review process here. Rockycape (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a valid summation of the discussion. Also WP:QUORUM is for discussions with 'very few or no comments', I don't see that as a concern in this instance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse probably the correct outcome. It's clear from the few available sources there's a sport called down-ball which is different from four-square, but it appears to be just too colloquial enough to pass GNG right now. SportingFlyer T·C 16:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, the close was a WP:Supervote. Not enough participants argued for “delete”. Notability unproven is not notability disproved. Non-notability is not necessarily a reason for deletion, especially when it is a common topic with very similar topics with articles; probably a redirect (keeping the history available) was a better outcome. In any case, the discussion has to support the outcome. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Request temp undeletion. User:Pppery‘s selective undeletion of two old versions is confusing. The AfD includes warnings to not confuse with downball, and it seems too hard to not confuse with downball. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not confusing. It's the desired end state if this DRV closes at endorse, which is what seemed at the time to be the consensus. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Pppery, it was the right thing to do, going forward, yes, no issue with the redirect and undeleting the old versions. But, for the purpose of this DRV, I’m confused as to what was deleted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This is a clear WP:1AM situation, in which Rockycape (and one editor with three total edits) made their case but failed to convince the Wikipedia community. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rockycape (talk) 04:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rockycape, DRV is not a forum for re-arguing the AFD, providing more sources and asking that the article should be kept. It's for assessing whether the closure was reasonable. That's all that it is about and your comments have ranged all over the map from complaining about the redirect to complaining that other editors didn't help you enough. This verbosity doesn't reflect well on you or swing other editors to your point of view. Your best bet right now is asking, nicely, for the article to be restored to Draft space. Perhaps if you changed your attitude and were not so critical, editors would help you out more. This is a collaborative platform, so collaborate. Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair call @Liz and thank you.
Undelete to draft - For the record. Dear fellow editors (& Deletion_review contributors), I'd like to ask for the article Down-ball to be restored to the Draft space. For those following along I've added an additional five (5) references specifically about Downball Wall.
Thanks, Rockycape (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently having more collaborative conversations with other editors than I've had before and am deliberately avoiding combative ones and also avoiding replying to votes against here. If there is any mechanism to extend this Deletion review then I would very much appreciate it very much colleagues. Thank you Rockycape (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is what happens when you stop taking everything personally and making up your own rules about how things should run vs learning and understanding how to they do operate on the site. Now to answer your question you have already taken this way outside the scope of deletion review, which is just meant to review the close of the discussion. I would recommend you either take all of this to Talk:Downball or the talkpage of the draft if you are still considering going that way. Looking at the consensus that has already formed here there will be no extension for the review. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 05:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to disagree with you McMatter. In regards to next steps following the closure of this Deletion Review, I'd appreciate being sent a copy of the now deleted down-ball page. Rockycape (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting as I did on @Rockycape's talk that I think a draft should be move protected to enforce AfC and avoid this whole cycle again since while there's split on redirect or not, there's no clear consensus that downball is a distinct & notable sport Star Mississippi 12:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi I created the draft based on a discussion with Rockycape on my talk page. Please move protect it: Draft:Downball (wall and ball game). —Alalch E. 14:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done if an AfC reviewer or other established, independent editor feels it's ready, the protection can be removed without discussing it with me. Star Mississippi 01:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a restoration to draft space would ultimately be futile for the reasons discussed ad nauseam in the AfD. Of the sources the page creator brings to DRV, Hyndman and Mahony et al, McKinty 2016, and McKinty's "Hidden Heritage" describe downball as the existing wiki page does: a game played on a flat surface similar to four square. Hyndman and Chancellor includes a passing mention of "downball" with no reference to how it is played. The University of Melbourne sources were discussed in detail in the AfD and are fieldwork observations from folklorists. One describes downball the way the page creator does (with a wall); another describes the wall-based game as different from downball. Hunt 2007, a physics paper, describes a variant of downball that involves a wall. As others have noted above, and as participants in the AfD decided, there is insufficient support in the sources for a separate "down-ball" page, but it seems like there is room for the page creator to add (or perhaps better, propose on the talk page to add) a section to the downball page called "Variants" about the version of the game involving a wall, using Hunt and the U of Melbourne folklore page as sources. There's evidence that some people play it with a wall, there's just no evidence that it's a completely different game with an identical name. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Rockycape, after this DRV, it might be undeleted to draftspace. If that happens, read advice at WP:THREE. On moving forward, my suggestion is to look at merging these variants of schoolyard ball games together. It is not best to have many similar articles on vaiants of much the topic. They should be compared and contrasted in a main article first. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok @SmokeyJoe. Also thank you for your suggestion. Rockycape (talk) 08:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. It will never be the case that we will stably have the following two articles in the encyclopedia at the same time: (1) an article titled exactly "Dowball", about a game; (2) an article titled exactly "Down-ball", about the game downball, but in one of its variants. That's just not going to be. Moving on... So the content was about an ostensible discrete variant of the game downball that has no specific name ("downball" and "down-ball" are obviously arbitrary spelling variations and if the-thing-with-its-real-or-purported-variant(s) that is dowball and is spelled "downball" or – as any such A+B word will necessarily also sometimes be alternatively spelled – "down-ball", any of its variants will also certainly be spelled downball or down-ball, unless they have a specific name), which if truly identifiable from the sources as a coherent variant (doesn't seem to be so according to Dclemens1971), is probably only one of downball variants all equally spelled downball/down-ball, as they would all simply be nothing but downball in its ostensibly varied forms...
I understand how this may seem like a classic ATD moment; this would have been a redirect from alternative spelling (hyphenation) with some potentially merge-able topical content underneath. But I believe that it must have been bad content of the WP:SYNTH kind. One participant did !vote redirect; still, the outcome was to delete, which at first doesn't seem great. But, presuming that the content was bad, there is a reason against applying an ATD, which is how I understand Dclemens1971 suggestion not even to undelete. So, in totality, it was fine to delete this. The sources are accessible and if any statements need to be added to the downball article backed up by those sources, it should probably be done from scratch.—Alalch E. 20:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article" - from specific notability guidelines
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Subject-specific_notability_guidelines:~:text=reliable%20sources%20generally.-,Notability%20is%20based%20on%20the%20existence%20of%20suitable%20sources%2C%20not%20on%20the%20state%20of%20sourcing%20in%20an%20article,-%5Bedit%5D )
I have a new argument based on new information that has come to light about wikipedia page noteability. Down-ball page should not have been deleted when Noteability is being based on the state of the sourcing in the article. (see section and link immediately above).
The editor who listed the AFD has been a lone figure who states that they went searching for suitable new sources. This is admirable but unfortunately they were unable to uncover suitable new sources. However, since then and in a short time new sources have been found which would indicate that other new sources are out there and just need to be found. To be clear I can't be certain that new quality sources will be found but more importantly others cannot be certain that they will not be found. The benefit of the doubt needs to be on side that new sources may be found. "Innocent until proven guilty" if you would allow me. The finding of new sources listed in this Deletion review necessitates that the Down-ball article should be restored or at least sent back to draft. I appreciate fellow editors taking the time to consider this new information and I apologise in advance if I am raising the ire of some. Yours faithfully, Rockycape (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rockycape, this is not AFD 2, reasons for keeping will not be considered in this discussion. This discussion is only about whether the closer read the consensus correctly and whether the close of the discussion be overturned or not based on that discussion. The notability of the subject is not a part of this discussion and the way to prove whether it is notable or not, is to re-draft the article out at Draft:Down-ball and I recommend then having that draft reviewed by an experienced editor. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@McMatter, I agree this is a Deletion review and not AFD 2. However I disagree with your conclusion about the admissibility of that information in this Deletion review. My reason for raising this Deletion review remains the same as when I raised it in that "The Closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly". The newly raised information (specific notability guidelines) is relevant because it relates to Consensus.
"Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument and cited recorded consensus. Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. For instance, if the entire page is found to be a copyright violation, the page is always deleted. If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, that argument is no longer relevant."
The closer in determining consensus should have paid closer attention to the new sources that were added in the AfD discussion and determined the result as no consensus.
For completeness, no editor has yet contented that this is an exceptional case requiring "a local consensus to suspend a guideline.
( Per "ignore all rules", a local consensus can suspend a guideline in a particular case where suspension is in the encyclopedia's best interests, but this should be no less exceptional in deletion than in any other area. )
In summary, the newly highlighted information is relevant to this Deletion review as it adds weight to the argument for the reason behind why this Deletion review is being considered in the first place. Rockycape (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No these are arguments that were meant for the AFD, not deletion review. Read through the purpose at the top of WP:DRV. Again it is time for you to step back and go work on the draft or add your content to the Downball article as suggested by others. At this point it is very close to becoming disruptive to the process with your constant selective interpretation of policies and guidelines. The closer's job is to determine the consensus of the discussion had based on the policies in the arguments in that discussion. You brining up new arguments here to "keep" the article is moot and does not belong here, instead stop wasting your time in this discussion and follow the advice given to you by myself and others in this discussion and elsewhere. It is time to drop the stick. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 22:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - We have a situation here that we occasionally, but too often, have at DRV. There is an Article for Deletion discussion which has become difficult to close because one editor has filibustered the discussion. Sometimes the disruptive editor is arguing for deletion. Sometimes the disruptive editor is arguing against deletion. The situation is essentially the same either way. An admin is bold enough to close the problematic discussion. The same editor then appeals to Deletion Review seeking to overturn the close. The same editor then resumes the filibuster. What should be done at Deletion Review? I think that, unless it is obvious to the editors at DRV that there was an error, the editors at DRV need not review the filibusters in depth, but can Endorse the close, because bludgeoning a discussion should not be rewarded. If another editor whose participation in the AFD was not disruptive (or who did not participate at all in the DRV) wants to appeal, DRV should give them full attention. This is such a case. The same editor who filibustered the AFD is filibustering the DRV, and this conduct should not be encouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse both because this was a correct closure and because the appellant should not be rewarded for filibustering. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point I'm happy to put a line in the sand and withdraw from providing further input. If an individual is suggesting sanctions then I think that is over-reach. It's embarrassing to review the large blocks of text that I've added to this deletion review so I've removed multiple comments. I'm also ok if they are undeleted.Rockycape (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have given Rocky a final warning for, among other things, So instead of the easy low blow of impugning my motives please take a look at yourself. and the ongoing bludgeoning. If it continues, I strongly suggest a p-block to allow consensus to form. Star Mississippi 01:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Star Mississippi, I apologise unreservedly for the comment and have removed it now. regards, Rockycape (talk) 01:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to offer an general apology to all for bludgeoning of this Deletion review and the preceding AfD. It wasn't my intention to bludgeon and it would have been much better to stop earlier than this Deletion review. When I most recently read about bludgeoning with a clear head I realised my mistake. I'd like to add that several fellow editors were trying to help by messaging directly to warm me. You particularly have my thanks. Rockycape (talk) 22:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and go build an article in draft or sandbox space that demonstrates notability through sufficient independent reliable sources. Please. Jclemens (talk) 06:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_July_5&oldid=1233640634"