- Risto Mitrevski (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Deletion discussion was closed after only 6 days, with comments from only 3 other people (with only 2 supporting deletion), rather than the 7 days. I asked the closing admin to reopen for further discussion, but they refused, invoking WP:SNOW. There is WP:NORUSH to close the AFD earlier than the prescribed 7-day period. I note the same admin also closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elkhan Temirbaev and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Michigan Bucks season however I see no compelling case not to delete those articles - but perhaps others do. I request that the AFD for Risto Mitrevski be reopened and relisted to allow for further discussion. Nfitz (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Question, are you asking to re-open the AfD because you want to comment in it in favour of keeping the article? Or are you just complaining about the premature close? In the first case I see a point and I endorse your request, otherwise this discussion sounds like an unnecessary drama. --Cavarrone 23:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I do intend to comment in favour of not deleting the article. I also pointed to two other articles the same editor also closed prematurely, which I didn't intend to comment on, so wasn't requesting they be reopened. I am concerned though that an editor is systemically closing articles a day early, especially when only 2 or 3 have commented - however perhaps that's a discussion for another place - and I wouldn't have brought it here, if I had no intent to suggest not deleting the article. Nfitz (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from closing admin. Nfitz hasn't fully represented my response to their question on my talk page. First thing I said in response was: "The consensus was clear on all of those, the issues not novel, and the participants well established and familiar with the subjects. What do you think could have changed in just one more day? What was going to be your argument for keeping?" I would have seriously considered undoing my one-day early close had they actually presented such an argument. And as I also said on my talk page, even with the AFD closed as "delete", all Nfitz would have to do to get it permissibly recreated is demonstrate the individual satisfied GNG or NFOOTY. But they didn't say they had an actual reason to offer for keeping, but instead just basically insisted on keeping it open one day longer for the sake of form. We don't do process for the sake of process, and these football player AFDs are routine and based on clearly accepted notability standards, which is why I considered the consensus solid and clear enough to close at that time. postdlf (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't now how having only two comments for and 1 against on AFD could be considered a consensus solid and clear enough to invoke early closure. It does not come anywhere close enough to the circumstances outlined in Wikipedia:Deletion process#Early closure that allow for early closure. The guidelines there are pretty clear that WP:SNOW shouldn't be "invoked in situations where a particular outcome is merely "likely" or "highly likely"". I'm not sure the relevance of football player AFD's is; football players AFDs are frequently rejected. Nfitz (talk) 05:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. As one of the editors who commented on the original discussion, I don't see what reason there would be currently to reopen. The player clearly failed the subject specific guideline and Nfitz has provided nothing here to assert GNG. Happy to have the discussion reopened if there is anything new to add but no arguments have been put forward to suggest there is. At the moment this seems bureaucratic at best and a bit pointy at worst. Fenix down (talk) 06:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - The AfD could have been left open for another day, and maybe that is a good idea just to avoid this. But I agree with the closing admin that it would not make any difference in this particular case. To reopen or overturn this specific AfD would waste people's time when the sources just don't support WP:Notability. I don't see this as borderline even. If Mitrevski can clear the bar set by NFOOTY in the future, then recreate. - Becksguy (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - I understand where the nom is coming from but if the AFD had been started 30 mins earlier, the "7 days" thing would be moot. Without an actual reason this should be kept, I see no reason to overturn the close. St★lwart111 11:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - what do you mean 30 minutes earlier? It was closed just after the 6-day mark. It was a full day from the 7 day mark. For those of us who normally only have the opportunity to look at things once a week, it means we never had an opportunity to comment. Nfitz (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean, the discussion was started at midnight-and-29-minutes on 9 February. 1/2 an hour earlier and it would have been 11:59 on the 8th February making the 15th (the date it was closed) "7 days". St★lwart111 01:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- 7 days = 168 hours. I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say, but it doesn't become 167.5 hours with what you are sugesting. Either way, the issue is that some of us only pop in once a week, to make sure we don't miss something. Typically I only have a chance to participate on Sunday morning and afternoons. As the AFD was initiated late on Sunday the 9th (local time) and then the AFD closed late on Saturday the 8th (local time), there was no opportunity to review it - which there would have been under the prescribed 7-day timeframe.
- The guideline says "7 days", not "168 hours". 1/2 hour would have put the start inside "the day before". Honestly, I don't know whether you're trying to be deliberately difficult or you genuinely don't understand. But it's not a complicated concept. The most this was "closed early" is 1 day. That's not reason enough, in my view, to overturn an otherwise valid close, especially without any other reason to do so beyond "I didn't get a go". Bureaucracy is great but common sense is better. You've been given a chance to present your argument as to why this close should be reconsidered. You've opened the bureaucratic Pandora's Box; there's no point needlessly holding out on everyone in terms of your secondary argument (why this should be recreated). Just present your case. St★lwart111 02:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are you being rude? You assume I'm either stupid or being difficult? It was closed a day early. As the AFD was started late on a Sunday and closed prematurely on Saturday evening, and I frequently only edit on Sundays, do you not see why I might object to this? And where do you get this overturn a valid close stuff? I was simply asking that the AFD be continued - that's hardly overturning a valid close. As I have commented below, I will make a DRV case to overturn the close, rather than simply reopen the AFD - though this will some time, as my time is limited, and it does require research in articles Serbian Cyrillic. Fortunately there is no WP:NORUSH. Nfitz (talk) 03:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- *sigh* "Misunderstanding" is not a synonym for "stupid". You're still mixing up dates and times so we'll assume it's the latter of my two original suggestions. The discussion was closed - to re-list the discussion, that close would need to be voided as premature, inappropriate or otherwise faulty in some way. Without a cogent argument as to fault, nobody is going to find it sufficiently faulty to warrant overturning. "Relist", "overturn" and "endorse" are all valid outcomes here (in addition to some others). Starting a second DRV will likely be seen as disruptive. St★lwart111 04:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - my understanding is that DRV is not the forum to make new arguments against the deletion of an article, but was the place to discuss substantive procedural errors in the deletion discussion. As such, I've tried to follow the guidelines (as I understand them) and only discuss the substantive procedural error that was made, for what I would have thought would be an open-and-shut case, rather than fill WP:DRV with material that should be in the AFD rather than at DRV. I'm not asking that the article be kept permanently, simply that the AFD be reopened for a short period of time so that I can make a case that the article shouldn't be deleted. Nfitz (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- We're just looking for some reason to think that there's a chance that the argument you feel you weren't allowed to make would have turned the direction of the discussion. For all we know, you were just going to write something like "<blink>KEEEEEEP</blink>, he's a real person! I know, because I dated him in high school!". You've been asked multiple times for such a rationale, starting with this, and have instead insisted on wasting other volunteers' time by bringing it here instead. —Cryptic 17:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That request was not related to this article in particular, but all 3 articles that user had erroneously closed. I responded to that request noting that I hadn't yet reviewed any of the articles (not an easy task once the article has been deleted!) and I simply asked him to reopen the AFDs to allow for review. Once it became clear the user was not going to reopen the AFD, I reviewed cached copies of the articles, and could see that only this article had a clear case that could be make regarding not deleting the article. However the user was already ignoring communication, so I felt that it was best to follow DRV procedures to fix the significant procedural error, and then present the case for re-opening in the AFD. The case to keep is based on meeting WP:GNG, and there's a secondary case to instead of deleting, to move to draftspace based on possibly meeting WP:NFOOTY when the season resumes in a few days, given his recent trade to a fully-professional team that meets WP:FPL. I'm not in the habit of either voting KEEEEEEP or making arguments based on my sex life, and I ponder the necessity of that comment. Nfitz (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The first thing I asked you was what your argument for keeping would be, and you've instead been just evading that question and repeating wikilawyering trivialities, rather than offering anything of substance despite being offered every chance to do so. If you believe you can demonstrate GNG, show us your sources, don't just assert it, and maybe you'll change someone's mind. If you think NFOOTY might be satisfied a few days from now (which could not have changed the AFD even had it been left open another day), then why didn't you just wait until that happened and then ask for recreation? postdlf (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And I immediately answered that I had not at that time reviewed any of the deleted articles - because they were deleted, and asked you to simply fix your erroneous premature close and simply reopen the AFDs. As I think that WP:GNG is met now - then why would I wait a few days? That's non-sensical. Afer I reiterated my request to fix your erroneous closes I did research all 3 articles in detail, I was planning to simply ask you to ignore the others, and reopen this one based on the evidence I had found - but you never again responded to my request - and yet were actively editing. So I had no choice given your lack of response but to proceed here. Nfitz (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak endorse these particular closes but please do not close early like this in future. If the snow is deep a very early close can let people get home before dark but there is no point in closing a bit early. Someone may be planning to comment towards the end of a discussion so as to be able to respond to all the points that have been raised. Thincat (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have been happy to reopen had Nfitz actually shown me such a comment, but he didn't (and hasn't. Maybe he still will, but even if he gets the final result he wants here I hope that he still will learn to get to the point in the future rather than waste a lot of time, and realize that not immediately getting your way does not mean that people aren't giving you a chance and trying to be helpful). Note also that the AFD had already gone five days without any discussion at the time I closed it. And the football player AFDs tend to be very binary, on the question of "have they played for a fully professional league" per NFOOTY, which makes them both easy to close once there is a sufficient quorum on the point and easy to recreate when you can verify that criteria has been met. postdlf (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion; no reason to believe outcome would be different if nom had been left open. Neutralitytalk 22:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion / Snow falls, but not in great depth / Small trout swim nearby -- RoySmith (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. I'm completely shocked and highly disappointed that everyone here reacts to such a procedural error with failing to simply fix the users's mistake and reopen the AFD for discussion, and instead want's to create extra unnecessary bureaucracy by insisting on having the deletion discussion here, rather than where it belongs at AFD. However if that's how you all want to do it, can someone please close this DRV, and I will start a new clean DRV based on the case that the player meets WP:GNG rather than the closing user screwed up the time period. Though as my time outside the weekend (it's a holiday Monday here) is limited, I may well no start that DRV until I have another sustained chance at participating. Nfitz (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there's general consensus here that postdlf made an error by closing this early (by my calculation, about 22 hours early). And that it's pushing things to say a 3-0 tally is enough to declare WP:SNOW. Hopefully, postdif will be more conservative in the future (and whoever closes this DRV should include such an admonition in the DRV close). But, these are all relatively minor procedural problems. If you really do have some substantial argument to make for keeping the article, you should come out and make it. Otherwise, this is just, "He did it wrong, so it doesn't count", which works in a (US) court of law, but not here. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, it was a 3-1 tally, not a 3-0 tally. Though not clear at first, a close examination of the AFD shows that User:PeppermintSA opposed deletion. I've altered my comments accordingly with this edit. Nfitz (talk) 03:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It still boggles my mind that there seems to be general consensus that in a discussion about reopening an AFD based on procedural error, that anyone would both concluded that there was a procedural error, and yet then endorsed such an erroneous close. I opened the DRV on the basis of the procedural error. This process seems to feel like the goalposts are constantly moving. I'm reluctant to change the entire basis of the discussion after 8 endorsements of the closure, and feel it would be simpler to let everyone breathe, and start cleanly requesting the article be permanently maintained on the basis that the subject already meets WP:GNG, rather than simply requesting that the AFD be reopened. Alternatively, I could also simply take the closing user up on their comment that they'd reconsider their early closure if I presented that argument on their talk page - and save everyone here the drama. Nfitz (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- ...if you had a time machine. It's a bit late to be claiming you can "save the drama" after you've already wasted all this time being coy. You seem to be so caught up in misguided, bureaucratic notions of how WP does or should operate that you've refused to take the open doors you've been offered repeatedly. Present your GNG case here and now. There's no such thing as a "clean" DRV (?), but there is such a thing as exhausting the community's patience, which you might do by opening a second DRV on the same article just because you want to keep your peas from touching your carrots on the same plate. postdlf (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What? That's a completely unnecessary personal attack and a violation of WP:FAITH. Just because you screwed up several closures is not reason to be rude. I've tried to follow the procedures here cleanly and simply, doing my best in good faith to follow the rather confusing guidelines and moving goalposts. Please apologize for this unnecessary rudeness! My gosh! And you really saying that you would ignore a reasoned case on your talk page, simply because of your own prejudice? Really? And you wonder why I think it's best to let the whole thing sit for a couple of days and let everyone breathe, instead of completely changing the request in the DRV (is that even allowed?)? Nfitz (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The DRV purpose point 5 states "if there was a substantive procedural error(s)..." (emphasis mine). So this is where your gap lies, people just don't see the error as substantive and your lack of providing much detail about the argument which you suggest could have proved to be decisive doesn't aid that. Reasonably you'd have been better going for point 3 "...significant new information has come to light since a deletion..." and providing the sources you think help pass GNG, you are correct DRV shouldn't be arguing the AFD on the basis of those sources, but in presenting them you'd probably end up with something along the scale of "strong sources overturn deletion" through "sources are ok, but not entirely convinced, restore and reAFD since that's where the evaluation should occur" finally to "sources are far short of the standard so endorse". I'm not sure that raising a new DRV would inherently amount to disruption, but (a) it won't excuse going through the normal process of discussing the new information with the deleting admin first (I would expect them to be professional enough to evaluate things on their merit) and (b) if the new information is clearly a long way short of the required standards it could be seen as merely disruptive. If I were in your position I'd either give the information I have now under this DRV and get it done with, or would step back for a few weeks and reevaluate with fresh eyes if I was still convinced the article should exist --86.2.216.5 (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
