Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 March 11

Agra (2007 film) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closed on the basis of no sources. There is a full Sify review here and a review by National critic Malini Mannath who writes for The New Indian Express here. DareshMohan (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources provided are, at best, borderline. SiFi one carries no author. The other one seems a bit questionable. I'd say feel free to recreate with this, but if you do it will probably end up deleted. One solid source in addition to what you have would probably be enough. But right now, probably below the bar. Hobit (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Recreation either in article space, subject to AFD, or in draft space, subject to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation Based on the contents of the AfD, the article had no sources and the participants didn't appear to find any during the discussion except for IMDB. I see no reason not to start fresh. That being said I'm in agreement with the above commenters that it'll probably need more sources added to avoid being nominated for deletion again in the future. NemesisAT (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Encourage draft. The proffered sources don't look good enough. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rachelle Bukuru (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Full disclosure, I was the nominator. The article was closed as "no consensus", but I do not believe it was appropriately weighted for policy-based arguments on this discussion about a Burundian soccer player. The delete votes were all made on the basis of failing WP:GNG (see discussion, source checks were done, including specific ones to Burundian media, no SIGCOV found) while most of the keep votes were made on the basis of passing WP:NFOOTY, and few others citing WP:BIAS (an essay). While WP:FOOTY is an SNG, there are two problems with its use in this discussion. Firstly, this RfC for NSPORTS (of which NFOOTY is a part) was just done, and while it hasn't been implemented yet one of the things agreed upon was the requiring of the provision of at least one example of SIGCOV in deletion discussions for sports figures. This did not happen in this discussion. Secondly, and more importantly, even before this RfC there was/still is an explanatory note at the top of NSPORTS which reads: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not they have attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Also refer to Wikipedia's basic guidance on the notability of people for additional information on evaluating notability. So clearly failing GNG means that this article should be deleted, regardless of the old WP:FOOTY criteria. If you have any doubts, please read the deletion discussion for more information. Indy beetle (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see now the article has been edited some since the original discussion. Unfortunately, all of the sources provided appear to be simple mentions of this player, not SIGCOV. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As the closer, I initially closed this AFD without comment because I didn't think it was a controversial decision. Opinion seemed evenly divided and the division seemed unresolvable. But now I can see that, with WP:NSPORTS being challenged and reviewed, every AFD on sports figures that hinges on notability is being hotly contested. I think that any decision, Keep, Delete or No consensus, would have left some participants unsatisfied. But if I overvalued the opinions that relied on WP:NSPORTS, that's a lesson that I should learn now, before a lot more articles on athletes get sent to AFD. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Someone should make a script to scrape the other DRVs on questionably notable sports figures we've held over the last two months or so, and then just pre-populate each DRV regular's opinion for us to review and approve. It would save time. Oh, and Endorse. Jclemens (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Giving the impression that you are blindly endorsing closes without review is not helpful. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 04:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Have you been around DRV much lately? Jclemens (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. No consensus seems reasonable based on numbers, but I'd be interested to know how the !votes were weighted given how weak the keep !votes were, only one of which addressed, but ultimately glossed over, the lack of sources. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 04:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, but allow speedy renom Nothing wrong with the close itself and acceptable closer discretion, and because the guidelines did change in the middle of the discussion I think it is fair to play it safe. However, because the guidelines did change in the middle of the AfD, allow a speedy renom to allow a new discussion under context of the new policies. Jumpytoo Talk 07:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• We need to decide how we are going to deal with all the other decisions in progress during the rules change. As this is not my usual field, is it true thathe invariable result of the rules change would be an article being that would previous be considered notable now not being considered notable? Even if that would be the direction of change, it can;'t be assumemd for any one paticular person--at the time they did not have met the burden of clearly and directly meeting GNG, the contibutors might well not have searched fully for possible references; now that they do need to meet the burden, they would surely at least try to find them, and in some but not all case they might have succeeded. So we cannot reverse en masse, but would have to reevaluate each individual individual with a proper search according to WP:BEFORE. This is even more of a problem when we consider the hundreds of thousands of articles that were previously uncontroversial accepted, but would now need to show reliable souring for notability. Do we intend to grandfather these in, or systematically reinvestigate them--which would I think be a multi-year project; we would need to consider that for many areas there is an enormously greater availability of sources than there was 15 years ago--that they were not found in the original afd does not meet they would not be found now.

There's an analogous problems with the field I do work in, organizations. Many corporations which met the rules 10 years ago might not do it today umder the current restrictions of NCORP; on the other hand there will be for many of them a wider availability of potential sources. (I am not currently going back and renominating them; i have quite enough work enough to do with the current submissions. And if we ever change the guidelines in an area to broaden coverage, we will have a even more difficult problem of equity. Furthermore, perhaps everything rejected for lack of sources should be reviewed every 5 or 10 years later in the hope of now being able to find sources. DGG ( talk ) 08:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Please correct me if I am wrong: There has been no change of rules or policy. Very near the end of the AFD discussion, but before the close, an RFC was closed concerning the sports notability guidelines saying there was consensus for some changes. A guideline advocates a standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. The sports guidelines have maintained this status throughout the edit-warring over them. People may still take and express their opinions on the notability of individual topics and, in my view, should still have their good faith opinions taken into account fully. So, I endorse the AFD close. Thincat (talk) 09:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the keep voters advocated for common sense or exceptions, as opposed to the guideline itself? Avilich (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete. When a sports biography is nominated for deletion, it gets listed at the relevant wikiproject which summons a bunch of "keep" voters who all make very similar arguments based on their preferred misreading of the rules. But the nose count ought not to matter, it should be the strength of the arguments. So looking past the brigading, at some point during the AfD, the keep side ought to have produced the significant coverage in reliable sources which they say exists. When they didn't, the outcome should have been delete.—S Marshall T/C 09:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You do realize that your opening (and presumably strongest argument) is an ad hominem argument, right? That that same critique, if both correct and applied fairly, would require us to dismantle DELSORT? Jclemens (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Would you mind reading everything I wrote rather than just the first sentence? I am of the view that selectively notifying a group that tends strongly to an extreme outlier view and includes football-focused spas is problematic, but then I go on to say some other things as well.—S Marshall T/C 00:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I did, in fact, read it, but only commented on the part that I believed impaired the rest of your argument: the notion that those with a more expansive view of inclusion criteria are somehow suspect or impugning the 'purity' of the encyclopedia--not your words, obviously--is a pernicious cancer on AGF, a divisive us v. them mentality that poisons discourse. By opening with that canard, you gave the very clear impression (to me, obviously) that everything else that came afterwards is just pretextual wikilawyering in support of the desired outcome. Words matter, arguments matter, order matters. Jclemens (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see where I wrote anything about the purity of the encyclopaedia or described anyone as a pernicious cancer. What I said was that selective notification about a discussion, when the notification goes to a group of users who tend to have similar and outlying opinions, is problematic.—S Marshall T/C 19:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  See below for this to play out in action. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Liz made the right call that there is no consensus here. Per WP:N, A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right, suggesting that passing an SNG is just as valid of an argument as passing GNG. Per WP:NSPORTS, The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. The "or" here is consistent with WP:N that NSPORTS is an alternative to GNG for presumed notablity. Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (for example, the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines). This again suggests the guideline may be used as an alternative to GNG. The contents of NFOOTY is under active discussion and any deletions should hold off until the dust has settled, as the closure of the review of NSPORTS is currently at WP:AN. NemesisAT (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure why you insist on repeating this fallacy, other than a stubborn refusal to accept community consensus. Successive RFCs (in 2017, and more recently at N and VP) and countless other discussions have reaffirmed community consensus that NSPORT is absolutely not an alternative to GNG (the VP RFC even included an explicit proposal to this end; it was rejected); this is also crystal clear in the wording of NSPORT, and it's FAQs, when not cherry-picked as you are doing. GNG must be met (eventually), which generally includes when the presumption is challenged at AFD. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "Cherry picked" works both ways. If community consensus is so strong, the guidelines should have been updated to reflect that. I'm currently following what it says in the guidelines. If the 2017 RFC is the one I'm thinking of, the close was questionable as I don't remember seeing a clear consensus when I read it over. NemesisAT (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You also do not get to ignore community consensus simply because you don't agree with it. Incidentally, "clear consensus" happens to be the exact phrase used in the 2017 RFC close. _wjemather^{please leave a message...}

• Overturn to delete. Despicable closure. The weight of the keep arguments were over-represented when most of them amounted to nothing more than mere WP:VAGUEWAVES, while the delete !votes had thorough arguments backed by actual practice. WP:BIAS is a valid critique of Wikipedia's coverage of topics outside of the western hemisphere and the community's shortcomings in that regard, but not a rationale to retain an article that does not satisfy notability guidelines. Indy beetle summary hit the nail on the head. Even the relisting user who is not an admin got it right. The AFD nomination statement was never adequately addressed and this was an easy "delete". ✗plicit 12:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Whoa, steady on. I think this close should be overturned to delete too, but "despicable" is a bit strong.—S Marshall T/C 12:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse and allow speedy renom Close was reasonable, but given all the banging about with changes etc. I think we can allow a renom. I'd say let's wait 2 weeks or so for the SNG issues to settle a bit and then send it back. Hopefully by then we'll be in a better place. Hobit (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. The issues regarding changes to NFOOTBALL emerged only at the very end of the discussion, and there was not adequate time for !voters to address them. It's generally not a good idea to close an AfD (particularly one that's only been relisted once) when productive discussion is continuing and new arguments have been recently raised. I might support an "endorse and allow speedy renomination" outcome if the NFOOTBALL changes had occurred after the discussion had been closed, but since the arguments were presented in the AfD I think it's fair to allow them to be considered at greater length. (Oh, by the way: Caphadouk, who !voted keep, has just been blocked as a sockpuppet, so that !vote should be given no weight.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 22:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh for God's sake.—S Marshall T/C 23:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Are projects normally informed of deletion reviews? -Indy beetle (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Why are we whispering? Seriously though, no they aren't, but only because there are so few DRVs that deletion sorting doesn't really make sense. Hobit (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]

• Endorse - whatever you think about NFOOTBALL, the consensus was clear. Do not allow to be re-nominated for 6 months, otherwise it's POINTy. GiantSnowman 22:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The consensus was clear"....you do realize this was closed as "no consensus"? The only thing that was clear to me is that none of the keepers provided any sources in the discussion. Seems rather unfair to automatically classify a possible decision in a 6-month future timeframe as POINTy, especially when the community consensus as per that RfC is that in future AfD discussions all sports articles should be supported by at least one piece of SIGCOV. How would an AfD to see if the article complies be POINTy? -Indy beetle (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  the closer gives the result is no consensus,not keep Hhkohh (talk) 05:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as the right conclusion after an inconclusive AFD. Sometimes an appellant makes a good-faith appeal that really a complaint that the closer should have supervoted based on the appellant's interpretation of strength of argument. This is such an appeal, a good-faith opinion that the closer should have downgraded half of the opinions. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • • In my opinion, sports notability should be an alternative to general notability, but the real issue here is whether an inconclusive AFD should be closed as No Consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • You say "supervote" as if closers do not regularly disregard the weaker arguments in favor of the stronger, policy-based ones. Though I concede "weaker" and "stronger" are in the eye of the beholder. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn or relist The qualitative gap between the arguments is as high as it can be, with the nominator's source analyses on one side vs. vaguewaves on the other. NSPORT itself, even the pre-RfC version, requires some amount of non-trivial sourcing to confer notability. Whether that requirement matches GNG doesn't matter here, as the keep voters didn't discuss the sources at all, so the case for notability is an empty one in whichever standard one applies. The closer's excuse that she doesn't know whether to choose between NSPORT and GNG is clearly nonsense, as NSPORT itself leaves no doubt that 'keep per NFOOTY' is not a valid argument in an AfD. Avilich (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist or renominate- unusual case in which the relevant guidelines were being modified while the discussion was ongoing. There should be no barrier to a speedy re-examination of this article. Reyk _YO! 21:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Already relisted once. Hard to see how that delete would be a possible consensus outcome - there'd be a better case that keep has more consensus, as they do support their positions with current policy, rather than Crystal Balling future policy. If NFootball is removed in the future, then another AFD seems fine. Nfitz (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Whether the rules change applies to her is actually irrelevant, as the subject did not meet notability standards before, either. She met criteria for a presumption of GNG notability, and if an editor had identified a specific, hard-to-access Burundian news source that would be very likely to contain SIGCOV of her there would be more reasonable cause to delay deletion. However, the keep !votes were exclusively on the basis of either WP:BIAS (which is not a guideline or policy) or "meets NFOOTY and has ongoing career" (which is not sufficient in the absence of even a hint of GNG sourcing). There is plenty of precedent to support deletion of GNG-failing NFOOTY-meeting subjects with ongoing careers, e.g. Edvin Dahlqvist, Wei Changsheng (where the close summary included Despite appeals that this article should be kept on the grounds that he apparently has an ongoing career, this request is not grounded in any guideline), Erik Gunnarsson (close: The keep votes centre entirely around NFOOTY which is a presumption of GNG. Per WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS my assessment of the arguments is that those claiming the subject fails gng carry more weight as not a single source which might indicate the significant coverage NFOOTBALL assumes has been presented. (emphasis mine)), Brad House (close: Keep arguments based on WP:NFOOTY do not overcome the Delete arguments based on WP:GNG.), Abdellatif Aboukoura, etc. JoelleJay (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I explained in my statement how the subject's lack of coverage in RS failed the guidance offered in NSPORTS (which directed one to GNG) before the RfC was ever done. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, (involved) per the lack of policy based keep justifications. A few of the keep !voters did mention NFOOTY, but that argument stopped applying prior to the close of the AFD, and even before then it was a weak argument. Note that one of the keep !voters has now been banned as a sockpuppet. BilledMammal (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete or, second choice, renominate. Keep rationales were not founded in policy and no significant coverage in reliable sources was demonstrated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There was no consensus to delete. "No consensus" was the correct close. Do not overturn from DRV, DRV is not AfD2. Instead, follow the advice at WP:RENOM. Make the new nomination better. It is not good enough to be right, you need to have a consensus agree with you. NSPORTS is in flux, now is not the time for knee jerk intervention from a review process. Do not allow an immediate re-nomination, a better nomination takes time to compose. I suggest a thorough source analysis, which was not done in the AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the time the article was nominated, there was a single database source. No one was challenging the failure of GNG. A source review was not necessary at the time. None of the keep votes suggested sources which needed to be reviewed. Those keepers that did discuss sources were mostly trying to argue that it did not matter that sources did not exist. That would probably be necessary in a new AfD, since sources (none of which qualify as SIGCOV in my view) have since been added. Also I find your rationale disappointing, since the implications of it suggest that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can essentially ignore policy and guidelines, particularly in doing things that the guidelines explicitly advise against. This attitude is allowing the sports projects to behave as a sovereign citizen movement, subject to the rules only as they see them, not as the rest of the community sees them. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi User:Indy beetle. A single database source explains the start of the AfD and the lack of direct discussion of the best sources. Failure of GNG refers to sources that exist, not sources in the article. Unfortunately, for people arguing deletion, the addition of sources during the discussion makes it very hard for later participants to see a coherent compelling argument for deletion. My rationale here is not based on LOCALCONSENSUS nor inclusionism, but on how AfD works, and doesn't work, and it doesn't work well to rush a deletion argument while the sources in the article are changing. NSPORTS is in flux, and is ripe to fall. I am not here to defend NSPORTS.

    Today there are seven references.

    • 1. Database, subject merely listed, no prose, not GNG compliant
    • 2. Subject not there, subject is not "Joëlle Bukuru". Not GNG compliant.
    • 3. Subject merely listed, not GNG compliant.
    • 4. Subject merely listed, not GNG compliant.
    • 5. Subject merely listed, not GNG compliant.
    • 6. Subject merely listed, not GNG compliant.
    • 7. Subject not even named.

    OK. I see your point. Overturn to Delete.

    My sympathies to Liz, it looked like no consensus, but after reviewing the sources, the "keep" !votes were !voting on no substance. -- SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To note, I am aware that GNG applies to all existing source material and not what is merely in an article at a given time, and I did do a WP:BEFORE including Burundian sources (as discussed in the AfD), and came up with nothing better than single mentions such as those above. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTBALL as an SNG is an indicator that the GNG will be met, and the article kept if nominated at AfD. SNGs do not force the AfD decision. There is no coverage beyond a name mention in any source, and so there is no basis for an article, much as the "delete" !voters were all saying. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Do not overturn from DRV, DRV is not AfD2". 15 minutes later: "There is no coverage beyond a name mention in any source, and so there is no basis for an article". Hmm. Avilich (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, User:Avilich, astounding. I was astounded at how useless every added source is. I don't know that closers are expected to look at the sources added during an AfD, but if they did they would have immediately seen the shallowness of the "keep" !voters, and how the "delete" !votes were speaking directly to the lack of coverage. Whoever added references 2 and 7 should be warned for disruption, adding non-sources in an attempt to show that they are adding sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 2 mentions the subject, but does not appear to support the claim the citation is attached to in the article. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, Rachelle is in the list. Still a useless source. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I was drawing attention to your frequently saying things like "good close", "follow advice at WP:RENOM", and "DRV is not AfD2" as a sort of knee-jerk reaction seemingly without considering the actual merits of the close aside from the raw headcount. This is inconsistent with you then analyzing the sources as if this were precisely an "AfD2". In this case, you didn't need to look at the actual sourcing: just a look at NSPORT itself makes it clear why the "keep per NFOOTY" votes are worth less. Avilich (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On this occasion I was surprised. I did read through the AfD, and did read the article, and did look at the source urls noting some at least looked good but without actually reading them. When I later read the sources, it completely recoloured the AfD discussion. Normally I avoid NSPORTS. I am completely unaccustomed to seeing five database entry sources, and two sources that don’t mention the subject, as the entirety of the sourcing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On my first pass, before your first reply to me, I had failed to look and see the state of the article at nomination, and was critical of there not being a thorough source analysis. More of the same sources and worse being thrown in during the discussion explains your nomination, and so I seriously reconsidered. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you taking the time to examine the merits of the AfD. I've been here since January 2016 and this is only the third time I've ever participated in deletion review, and the first time I've ever opened a discussion here to overturn a keep vote. I like to think that, considering the merits (or rather, lack thereof) of the subject that I'm not crazy. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Despite lots of yelling by a minority, the community has not deprecated NFOOTY/NSPORTS, and meeting it, or GNG, is acceptable to have an article. As such, the closer did not have jurisdiction to disregard keep !votes as the requester and others would have wished her to do, and no-consensus was within the reasonable range of possible closures. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Stifle: Can you then explain why there was from before the big sports RfC and still is an explanatory note there at the top of NSPORTS which explains that this very notion is incorrect as far as NSPORTS go, that meeting the SNG is only meant to prevent quick deletion, and that GNG is the more general standard? I explained this all in my original post, I do not understand why no one is reading it or cares to address that. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which "big sports RFC" do you have in mind? Stifle (talk) 11:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The one I linked in my first post to this thread. It did not change the guidance at the top of NSPORTS which suggested deference to GNG after an article’s notability has been challenged and attempts to find SIGCOV have been made. -Indy beetle (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not what the RFC said or decided. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • You appear to be responding to a point that has not been made. As to your original post, while generally accurate in your supposition that "the closer did not have jurisdiction to disregard keep !votes" (emphasis mine), no-one is suggesting this; the argument that has been put forward is that !votes were not properly weighted with respect to policies and guidelines because the keep arguments were extremely weak in this regard (ATAs abound with many vague waves, citing an essay and crystal balling vs. lack of sources and a strong rebuttal of the usual "local sources must exist" fallacy), and the closer absolutely does have authority to do this. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Bolding for clarity: What I am saying is that the RfC did not change the part of NSPORTS which suggests deference to GNG when a specific subject's notability is challenged. So it is not an "or" situation. Also re Wjemather, to be fair to Stifle I did use the word "disregard" above which probably wasn't the best choice, as I meant as you explain it: different weighting of !votes, not necessarily dumping them out entirely (except for that sockpuppet vote, of course). -Indy beetle (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated or not, NSPORT says "A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources" and "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources ... is not sufficient to establish notability". No such sourcing was evidenced in the AfD, so it's a lie to say that the closure was a choice between favoring NSPORT, GNG, or neither, because none of the two were met. Avilich (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]