Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 August 11

It appears that this Keep close did not adequately assign weight to !votes based on "reasonable, policy-based arguments" in accordance with WP:CLOSEAFD, as there does not seem to be consensus that the single source is SIGCOV and no editor made a guideline-base argument as to why this article should be exempt from the significant coverage requirement.

Although one editor did point to Cricinfo as significant coverage, they did not address concerns that this is only one source and may not meet SIGCOV due to being nothing more than statistics written as prose.

The remainder of the Keep votes point to the number of matches played, "common sense", "procedural keep on the grounds that I have no idea what is in Wisden to add to the article, although those who have access presumably do" and one editor's opinion that sources are likely to exist. None of of these arguments are based on current SNGs or GNG.

Given the lack of policy-based responses, I propose that this be Relisted. –dlthewave ☎ 22:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• Relist (involved). No editor was able to find significant coverage; one editor did note that there was prose within the CricInfo article, but no editor claimed it was WP:SIGCOV. In the absence of any WP:SIGCOV the article fails WP:SPORTSCRIT #5 and WP:GNG, and can not be kept per WP:LOCALCON. BilledMammal (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
• Speedy close since the closer has relisted it herself. Note also that the nomination was made by a sockpuppet. StAnselm (talk) 01:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse (involved). Clearly no consensus to delete. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - Is there a reason why this DRV and the previous one by the same appellant do not have an xfd_page link? The link is useful when it is provided. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I've added the links, my apologies for overlooking that. –dlthewave ☎ 15:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I believe that this No Consensus close does not adequately consider the fact that none of the Keep !votes present evidence of significant coverage or make a policy-based argument for why it should be exempt from that requirement. Instead, both of the Keep !voters appealed to the fact that Oudulf played in many high-level games, which does not presume notability under the current NSPORTS guideline.

This leaves us with one Delete and two Redirects which are based on policy. This should be adequate to close as a Redirect, however a Relist would also be appropriate to try to get more input. –dlthewave ☎ 22:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn to redirect (uninvolved). The two !keep voters were contrary to broader consensus, as they assumed notability based on appearances, a position that was rejected in the recent RfC, and thus per WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS and WP:LOCALCON can not be kept. BilledMammal (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
• Speedy close since the closer has relisted it herself. Note also that the deletion nomination was made by a sockpuppet. StAnselm (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - This DRV and the subsequent one, also by User:Dlthewave, do not have an xfd_page link. Why not? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)