Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GAFFER

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GAFFER

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deleted by PROD in 2010. REFUNDed earlier today by a user who then changed the article to be about an entirely unrelated magazine. That edit has since been reverted (not by me) as an article hijack.

The point remains that the original subject, the east African football organization, does not demonstrate notability. In its present state it is basically an A7. Since birth in 2009, it has been sourced solely to its homepage, and I did not find any substantial sources on a search. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does this need to be in AFD? It seems that no one wants the article ... User:Serankail asked for a refund, but the material they got was presumably not what they were looking for. So they did the sensible thing, and put in the content on a different subject. What I don't get is why User:Prahlad balaji restored the text that no one had any interest in, and then actually warned Serankail! Why not simply revert User:Prahlad balaji's edit, and judge the notability of the magazine? Is Prahlad balaji] supporting a keep? Nfitz (talk) 05:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't think the magazine is notable either based on the sourcing, and based on their edits (a bunch of little tweaks before suddenly requesting a REFUND) I'm suspicious of a possible COI on Serankail's part. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The magazine may well pass GNG, but the capitalisation is unnecessary, per WP:TITLEFORMAT. I propose the content about the magazine (i.e. this edit) be moved to Gaffer (magazine) and linked from the disambig page Gaffer; and that the page GAFFER is deleted. If editors feel that the magazine isn't notable, that needs to be addressed in a separate AfD discussion. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like the best approach! Nfitz (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care either way, but for what it's worth I'm not sure we can just un-refund a refund on the basis of assuming that the original requestor didn't actually want the content. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the page to Gaffer (magazine) and linked it to the disambiguation page. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

REDMAN 2019, why would you do that? The subject matter on the page is about a football organization. Copy/paste the magazine content if you want, but you've now moved unrelated edits to a page whose title describes it as a magazine. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Premeditated Chaos, sorry. Misinterpretation on my part. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: To everyone above (nfitz, Premeditated Chaos, and REDMAN 2019), the user hijacked the article, which I don't support. ~~I am completely neutral on this subject,~~ and if they want to make their own page about their magazine, I'm completely fine. (Courtesy pinging @Serankail.) However, as Premeditated Chaos said, Serankail might have a COI on their part, so we might want to watch out for that. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 14:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - where's the notability? Giant Snowman 15:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This really should CSD. Govvy (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and move the earlier draft to Gaffer (magazine) as per discussion above (which I'm doing right now), with no prejudice about AFDing that. User:Prahlad balaji, I don't see that refunding a decade-old article that no one wants, and then replacing it with what may be notable is "highjacking" - and there's no evidence that there was any malice in the action. It would have been best if the user had asked that the article be redeleted, and then create something new ... but I don't think using terms that fail WP:AGF helps the situation, and only creates a disruption. Nfitz (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz I support retargeting. There's no evidence that this one Gaffer is more notable than the others. Serankail can start his own page about his magazine. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 18:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

courtesy pinging @Serankail: ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 18:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They did! They just didn't do it in quite the write way. Surely we should welcome and support new editors, not make two different AGF accusations about them AND basically shit all over them. Essentially you've assumed bad faith here ... which is surely a worse offence than whatever red tape they failed. Any why the assumptions about gender, User:Prahlad balaji? Nfitz (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

nfitz Don’t nitpick. I’m sorry I assumed bad faith. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 19:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a nice cup of tea and a sit down. It looks like Gaffer (magazine) is where it should be (thanks @Nfitz:) and now we can focus on the matter in hand. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am very sorry for all these mess. I was not aware of all these and hijacking an article was not intended at all. I will try my best to keep improving the existing pages. Regards. Serankail (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serankail Thank you. Please remember that if you want to create a new article, then make a new article instead of modifying the existing pages. Best, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 20:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't an existing page User:Prahlad balaji - that's the whole point. And you accuse me of nitpicking! You messed up the entire situation and created an unnecessary disruption - stop blaming others and stop the WP:BITE. Nfitz (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

nfitz i am not blaming anyone. Who am I biting? All i am doing is saying that if there’s a new page, they should actually create a new page. i might look like i’m disrupting, but i’m Not doing it intentionally ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 20:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You literally put a warning template on their page, threatening that they could be blocked from editing. And now you justify your error by noting that it was an existing page ... but when they started, it wasn't an existing page. They had all rights to request a speedy of the page ... so changing the page, instead of first deleting it again is a minor technicality. The use of the word existing to defend you mistake, is a WP:BITE, and uncivl. Please stop. Nfitz (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

nfitz Sorry about putting the warning message. Can we please forget about that? Please see my comments below. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 21:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comments below User:Prahlad balaji. You are still pretending there was an existing page before Serankail came along, trying to deflect the blame for your error. That's biting. Stop now. Nfitz (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: I’m sorry for my error. However, I’m unclear about the “existing page” bit. Could you clarify that for me? Sorry for everything that I have done. Thanks, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 21:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page had been prodded and deleted in 2010. This week, Serankail asked it to be REFUNDed, presumably found it wasn't what they expected, and started a new article. The only thing they should have done in addition, was to request the Admin who'd just REFUNDed the page, to undo that. But I can see why one would try and fix an error of one's own making oneself, rather than ask others ... Nfitz (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But what are you implying? ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 21:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was no existing page - it had been deleted in 2010. Nfitz (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@nfitz Ok, but how does that relate to the new article? Forgive me if I’m annoying, but I’m very confused. —◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 21:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll agree with that ... Nfitz (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m just gonna forget this stuff. I’ve apologized, !voted, and the magazine page has been created. Nothing more for me to do here. I’ll go back to vandal-fighting. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 22:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: It looks like there’s a misunderstanding. I told them that if they want to edit about a topic not already on WP, then they should create a new article instead of modifying an existing page. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 20:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serankail,I hope that helps. I have also messaged you on your talk page. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 20:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz, I really have no idea how you can claim there wasn't an existing page when there literally was? Serankail got it refunded, and then chose to overwrite the content. There wouldn't have been any content to overwrite if there wasn't an existing page. It's pretty ridiculous for you to go so hard on Prahlad balaji, who clearly didn't realize there had been a refund, and correctly reverted a page overwrite (which is exactly what is normally done when an article is overwritten) and then again correctly warned the person that overwriting pages can lead to blocking if it continues (which it can). I think you're the one who owes an apology here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't give them a hard time, until they kept going on about it after having been told otherwise. Gosh, it says it was refunded at the top of this page! They did NOT correctly warn the person ... warning a new editor that they could be blocked is NOT the way it should be done. I have no idea why this discussion is proceeding here ... they've both admitted their errors. Move on. Nfitz (talk) 02:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You literally followed them to Serankail's talk page to continue to hassle them about it, but yeah, I'm the one who needs to move on. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not moving on until User:Nfitz gives me the sorry that they so expected of me. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 20:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this elsewhere ... I'm not sorry for pointing out your WP:BITE fail here. Nor did I solicit an apology. Nfitz (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no assertion of notability Spiderone 07:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.