Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 July 3

2026 FIVB Women's Volleyball Nations League preliminary round, 2026 FIVB Men's Volleyball Nations League preliminary round – While I think we are closing too many reviews early the outcome is extremely clear and the nominator is clearly getting upset by the discussion so I'm closing this to help them avoid incurring some form of administrative action. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:41, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
2026 FIVB Women's Volleyball Nations League preliminary round (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`revisions`\|`restore) 2026 FIVB Men's Volleyball Nations League preliminary round (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`revisions`\|`restore) There wasn't a proper consensus as the men's and women's pages are identical and most of the conversation regarding the pages was on the men's page. I also find it highly disrespectful that the person who decided to close the discussion as redirect just ignored the people who are on my side and deemed their opinions as invalid. She also accused me of canvassing even though all I was doing was asking for people's opinions as I wanted to discuss the situation without specifically one editor around. Instead of saying instantly that what I did was canvassing and then disregard their opinions, they should have just warned me rather than instantly disregarding their opinions. I asked about around ten editors individually for their opinions so it wasn't like I was trying to manipulate the vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ILoveSport2006 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 3 July 2026 (UTC) Also, I have independent sources. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2026 (UTC) The presence of independent sources is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a stand-alone article. The articles were redirected as a matter of due weight. If there is additional information in your sources, you may add it to the parent article, and its due weight can be discussed on the parent article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2026 (UTC) They were already on the pages and I could probably find more. H ILoveSport2006 (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2026 (UTC) Endorse, if this is asking us to review the close the AfD. The appellant is the only editor who opposed a redirect and their argument was not policy-based. No reasonable close would have resulted in a keep, or even a no consensus result. Katzrockso (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2026 (UTC) Endorse both. I see a unanimous P&G-based consensus to redirect both. No valid argument for standalone retention. The appellant would be well advised to stick to substantive arguments instead of interpersonal drama. Owen× ☎ 20:50, 3 July 2026 (UTC) @Katzrockso I had support from people so your point doesn't make sense. @OwenX You don't know the situation so kindfully, don't advise when you don't know. Also, to both, I literally stated I have independent sources, which I heard is necessary for a standalone page. Did you just ignore that? I am fed up of Wikipedia editors not listening to me. It gets me very upset when my points are ignored and once again, the same thing happened. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2026 (UTC) Independent sources are a necessary but not sufficient condition. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2026 (UTC) I didn't see the second AfD link, but my evaluation remains the same Katzrockso (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2026 (UTC) @Katzrockso How does your evaluation remain the same? I just said I have independent sources and had support. What else do I need? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2026 (UTC) Our job at deletion review is to evaluate whether the close is an accurate summarization of the consensus engendered in the discussion. The consensus in these discussions was to redirect these articles. What you need is to wait a significant period of time and submit a draft through AfC and see if consensus changes. Katzrockso (talk) 22:34, 3 July 2026 (UTC) May I ask two questions? How is 4:3 vote a consensus? How am I supposed to improve the articles when I added already independent sources which should've been enough and have no idea how to improve the page further? The volleyball project talk page is very unresponsive. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2026 (UTC) Discussions are WP:NOTAVOTE. Closers can, should and do WP:DISCARD votes that are compliant with policies and guidelines. Moreover, in the first AfD discussion, I did not see any 3-1 ratio. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026 FIVB Women's Volleyball Nations League preliminary round, you were the only editor to !vote to keep the article. In the second one, there were canvassed non-policy votes that were appropriately discarded. Since the edit history is preserved by the redirect, you can copy that (with attribution) to a draft and continue to work on the draft to improve it. However, you should not move the draft to mainspace and would need to have it accepted by AfC. Moreover, you would need to address the concerns of the delete !voters in your draft. I would recommend waiting to even attempt this, as doing it so quickly would be in violation of the consensus at the AfD. Katzrockso (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2026 (UTC) Endorse both as the right calls by the closer. How much information about the preliminary rounds should be included in the parent articles can be decided by normal discussion on the article talk pages. In my opinion, the amount of detail in the redirected articles, and therefore their length, was excessive, so that there was policy-and-guidance rationale for redirection; but if the appellant wants to add the material to the parent articles, they can discuss at the parent article talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 4 July 2026 (UTC) I tried to talk but the volleyball editors are very unresponsive so it is very difficult. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 08:41, 4 July 2026 (UTC) Sometimes one must accept that one is in the minority . Robert McClenon (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2026 (UTC) Caution the appellant. AFD and DRV are content forums, but casting aspersions as to motives, and personal attacks, are not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 4 July 2026 (UTC) Endorse. Properly run AfDs, in both User:ILoveSport2006 failed to persuade. If there are more independent sources, discuss at the redirect target talk page. - SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:09, 4 July 2026 (UTC) User:ILoveSport2006 - You wrote, on my talk page: Look, I was being ignored by these people when I tried to discuss the issue. That is why I got so upset because it felt so unfair. I don't appreciate your reply when you don't understand the situation and how I felt ignored. Mind your business. You made the AFDs the business of the community of editors at DRV when you filed at DRV. You asked us to make those AFDs our business. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2026 (UTC) @Robert McClenon this comment: the appellant. AFD and DRV are content forums, but casting aspersions as to motives, and personal attacks, are not permitted. is not needed. You don't know the situation so in that regard, mind your business. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 12:23, 4 July 2026 (UTC) Improving Wikipedia is everyone's business. ILoveSport2006, if you keep violating WP:CIVIL, you will be blocked from this discussion. Owen× ☎ 15:36, 4 July 2026 (UTC) Then why do you conveniently ignore any points I am making? That gets me very irritated as I've dealt with this on Wikipedia for too long. It is not about improving, it's about not putting your opinion into something you don't know about. I was very hurt by people in volleyball not seeming to listen to me so yes I did react very badly to that. Volleyball editors would tell me to get a consensus then when I try to get a consensus, no one would ever respond. This conversation is supposed to be about the merits of my arguments and the fact that I do have independent sources, this isn't about telling me how I should act on Wikipedia. I am civil but if you ignore everything I say then I will react badly to that as I deem that as highly unfair and disrespectful. I have dealt with people on Wikipedia that think being passive aggressive is okay and they never get punished, which to me is wrong. If you can't understand the paragraphs above then it's a lost cause. The last thing I need in this moment of time is a lecture. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2026 (UTC) You don't know the situation so in that regard, mind your business is not WP:CIVIL commentary that is appropriate to say to other editors. Katzrockso (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2026 (UTC) Endorse clear consensus to redirect in both AFDs, especially given that the redirect !votes have much stronger bases in policies/guidelines than the keep !votes. The history is preserved in the redirect, allowing any user to take a version from the history into draftspace for improvement. Frank Anchor 17:36, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2026 FIVB Women's Volleyball Nations League preliminary round, 2026 FIVB Men's Volleyball Nations League preliminary round – While I think we are closing too many reviews early the outcome is extremely clear and the nominator is clearly getting upset by the discussion so I'm closing this to help them avoid incurring some form of administrative action. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:41, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

There wasn't a proper consensus as the men's and women's pages are identical and most of the conversation regarding the pages was on the men's page. I also find it highly disrespectful that the person who decided to close the discussion as redirect just ignored the people who are on my side and deemed their opinions as invalid. She also accused me of canvassing even though all I was doing was asking for people's opinions as I wanted to discuss the situation without specifically one editor around. Instead of saying instantly that what I did was canvassing and then disregard their opinions, they should have just warned me rather than instantly disregarding their opinions. I asked about around ten editors individually for their opinions so it wasn't like I was trying to manipulate the vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ILoveSport2006 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, I have independent sources. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

The presence of independent sources is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a stand-alone article. The articles were redirected as a matter of due weight. If there is additional information in your sources, you may add it to the parent article, and its due weight can be discussed on the parent article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

They were already on the pages and I could probably find more.

H ILoveSport2006 (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Endorse, if this is asking us to review the close the AfD. The appellant is the only editor who opposed a redirect and their argument was not policy-based. No reasonable close would have resulted in a keep, or even a no consensus result. Katzrockso (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Endorse both. I see a unanimous P&G-based consensus to redirect both. No valid argument for standalone retention. The appellant would be well advised to stick to substantive arguments instead of interpersonal drama. Owen× ☎ 20:50, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
@Katzrockso I had support from people so your point doesn't make sense.

@OwenX You don't know the situation so kindfully, don't advise when you don't know.
Also, to both, I literally stated I have independent sources, which I heard is necessary for a standalone page. Did you just ignore that? I am fed up of Wikipedia editors not listening to me. It gets me very upset when my points are ignored and once again, the same thing happened. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
Independent sources are a necessary but not sufficient condition. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
I didn't see the second AfD link, but my evaluation remains the same Katzrockso (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
@Katzrockso How does your evaluation remain the same? I just said I have independent sources and had support. What else do I need? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
Our job at deletion review is to evaluate whether the close is an accurate summarization of the consensus engendered in the discussion. The consensus in these discussions was to redirect these articles.

What you need is to wait a significant period of time and submit a draft through AfC and see if consensus changes. Katzrockso (talk) 22:34, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
May I ask two questions?
How is 4:3 vote a consensus?

How am I supposed to improve the articles when I added already independent sources which should've been enough and have no idea how to improve the page further? The volleyball project talk page is very unresponsive.

ILoveSport2006 (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
Discussions are WP:NOTAVOTE. Closers can, should and do WP:DISCARD votes that are compliant with policies and guidelines. Moreover, in the first AfD discussion, I did not see any 3-1 ratio. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026 FIVB Women's Volleyball Nations League preliminary round, you were the only editor to !vote to keep the article. In the second one, there were canvassed non-policy votes that were appropriately discarded.

Since the edit history is preserved by the redirect, you can copy that (with attribution) to a draft and continue to work on the draft to improve it. However, you should not move the draft to mainspace and would need to have it accepted by AfC. Moreover, you would need to address the concerns of the delete !voters in your draft. I would recommend waiting to even attempt this, as doing it so quickly would be in violation of the consensus at the AfD. Katzrockso (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
Endorse both as the right calls by the closer. How much information about the preliminary rounds should be included in the parent articles can be decided by normal discussion on the article talk pages. In my opinion, the amount of detail in the redirected articles, and therefore their length, was excessive, so that there was policy-and-guidance rationale for redirection; but if the appellant wants to add the material to the parent articles, they can discuss at the parent article talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
I tried to talk but the volleyball editors are very unresponsive so it is very difficult. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 08:41, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
Sometimes one must accept that one is in the minority . Robert McClenon (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
Caution the appellant. AFD and DRV are content forums, but casting aspersions as to motives, and personal attacks, are not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
Endorse. Properly run AfDs, in both User:ILoveSport2006 failed to persuade. If there are more independent sources, discuss at the redirect target talk page. - SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:09, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
User:ILoveSport2006 - You wrote, on my talk page: Look, I was being ignored by these people when I tried to discuss the issue. That is why I got so upset because it felt so unfair. I don't appreciate your reply when you don't understand the situation and how I felt ignored. Mind your business. You made the AFDs the business of the community of editors at DRV when you filed at DRV. You asked us to make those AFDs our business. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon this comment: the appellant. AFD and DRV are content forums, but casting aspersions as to motives, and personal attacks, are not permitted. is not needed. You don't know the situation so in that regard, mind your business. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 12:23, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
Improving Wikipedia is everyone's business. ILoveSport2006, if you keep violating WP:CIVIL, you will be blocked from this discussion. Owen× ☎ 15:36, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
Then why do you conveniently ignore any points I am making? That gets me very irritated as I've dealt with this on Wikipedia for too long. It is not about improving, it's about not putting your opinion into something you don't know about. I was very hurt by people in volleyball not seeming to listen to me so yes I did react very badly to that. Volleyball editors would tell me to get a consensus then when I try to get a consensus, no one would ever respond.

This conversation is supposed to be about the merits of my arguments and the fact that I do have independent sources, this isn't about telling me how I should act on Wikipedia. I am civil but if you ignore everything I say then I will react badly to that as I deem that as highly unfair and disrespectful. I have dealt with people on Wikipedia that think being passive aggressive is okay and they never get punished, which to me is wrong.

If you can't understand the paragraphs above then it's a lost cause. The last thing I need in this moment of time is a lecture. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
You don't know the situation so in that regard, mind your business is not WP:CIVIL commentary that is appropriate to say to other editors. Katzrockso (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
Endorse clear consensus to redirect in both AFDs, especially given that the redirect !votes have much stronger bases in policies/guidelines than the keep !votes. The history is preserved in the redirect, allowing any user to take a version from the history into draftspace for improvement. Frank Anchor 17:36, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Related Articles