- Lewis (baseball) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I don't believe that a consensus to merge the article was reached in the last deletion discussion. Considering the result of the first deletion discussion was keep, I believe there should be an unambiguous consensus to merge if this is to remain merged. Willbb234 23:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- Endorse First off, reviewing an October 2021 decision in July 2023 is unlikely to go anywhere. Second off, there are numerically 8 keeps to 11 merges, which is pretty close to a consensus. Of those keeps, one provides no argument at all, three just amount to "it's a featured article" (established precedent from at least 2016 is that GAs and FAs are not immune to AfD), one's an explicit plea to ignore all rules, one says "meets NBASEBALL" (established consensus is that sports SNGs are a presumption of notability not an absolute entitlement, and can be refuted in extreme cases like this one), and only one or two actually makes a somewhat convincing argument about the applicability of sources. The merge arguments, on the other hand, present a coherent claim about lack of significant-coverage-providing sources. So strength of argument also favors merge, or at least is nowhere near the point needed to overcome the numerical advantage. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- What expected benefit is there from splitting the content back out of 1890 Buffalo Bisons season? It seems like we'd be trading one nicely comprehensive article for two worse ones just for the sake of process. Folly Mox (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- Endorse. It was pointed out in the discussion that the SNG's presumption of notability is pierced by the fact that the featured article is so well researched, but with no in-depth coverage being located, that it's much more certain than usual that such coverage truly does not exist. A keep response to this was that being able to write about a topic at some length makes for a notable topic, by definition. However, a rebuttal of that was how the content is padded by contextual information and that very little is specifically about the subject. When some irrelevant keep !vote that needed to be discounted were discounted, it became pretty clear that there was a rough consensus around the merge case.—Alalch E. 01:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- Endorse. The keeps were based on the quality of the article and a no longer applicable SNG (NBASEBALL which basically allowed any player that played in a single MLB game to have an article), which aren't valid reasons to keep an article. The coverage of the topic at 1890 Buffalo Bisons season is ample and appropriate, as there isn't enough independent coverage to warrant a separate article for a guy whose full name isn't even known. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- Endorse for two reasons. First, the close was good. Second, it appears that the appellant is asking to have the article unmerged, or restored to article space, because it satisfies baseball notability, but that SNG has been deleted, as have most of the sports SNGs. Have I missed something, or has the appellant missed the fact that they are referring to a rescinded rule? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- Endorse per Robert McClenon, and also, the correct channel for discussion (de)mergers is the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- I won't endorse as I closed the AfD, but Pppery has pretty much made all my arguments for me, so thanks for that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- Endorse First, an AfD ten years prior doesn't really matter - consensus can change. Second, the AfD was correctly decided. Third, if you were to re-run this AfD now with the way the NSPORT thing went down, it would really be an option between delete or merge, not keep, as I believe the petitioner is hoping for. (NSPORT actually did something strange for baseball: it's now really hard to delete articles on current minor league players, but historical players who appeared in MLB would get deleted. It really should be the other way round.) SportingFlyer T·C 11:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- Endorse With 11 merge votes and 8 keep votes, a close of either merge or no consensus would have been reasonable. The keep votes cited NBASEBALL (which was valid at the time of the AFD), while the merge votes cited lack of notability. I have no prejudice against restoration if more sources become available to meet WP:GNG (which I see as being unlikely), as WP:NSPORT2022 requires GNG being met for articles on baseball players, rather than the prior "presumed notability" of having played in MLB. Frank Anchor 16:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- Taking a quick look for sources, there's a pretty in-depth article focusing on Lewis here, although I'm unsure of the reliability of the website. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- Medium is self-published, so it's a no-go. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 03:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Endorse. Deletion was not remotely on the cards, and AfD should not be used to force a merge, use the talk pages. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Comment See User:Hobit#There is a beach with children building sandcastles for what is "wrong" (or maybe right) with this AfD and this DRV. The article had sources enough from the time period and I imagine there are modern sources. Maybe it should be under another name, but Lewis (baseball) is probably the best. That said, I agree that merge is a reasonable (if sad) reading of consensus. But I don't feel this is a sandcastle that needed to be knocked over. Hobit (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
|
