210:(almost all others were created in the last 6 months after the AfD). I think it has since been made clear that making event-specific articles for these sorts of championships is common practice for use of Knowledge (XXG) as an encyclopedic reference. Although the competition is "youth", it does receive major coverage due to the international / world championship nature, and many of the competitors have their own articles and are senior Olympic medalists and champions. Ten sources were used and I'm confident that more exist.
259:, who didn't enter a bolded !vote, but was very clear about their view to delete. On the Keep side, I only see the appellant, who is also the creator and substantially the only one who edited the article. I don't want to use the term "bludgeoning", but the appellant's extensive responses to each and every Delete view on that AfD failed to sway any of the participants, ending in a clear consensus to delete.
442:. From time to time, editors creating articles of a certain specific type becomes a comon occurrence and this comes to be seen as a common practice. But deletion of articles on non-notable topics is the actual common practice. AfD is when editors decide if what was created should be retained in the encyclopedia, and here, they formed a rough consensus to delete.—
350:, I don't see that the argument that this article should be Kept had any support except from you even after two relistings. There was no way that a consensus would be to Keep. I think your best option now is to see if this article can be restored to Draft space where you can continue to improve it and submit it to
160:
213:
Even disregarding the ten sources used, I think there is an argument to keep the article as well if we classify it as a "list" of results because lists can be kept as navigational aides even if they don't meet GNG. Many results articles like this have already been assessed as List-class backing up
454:
there was clear consensus to delete. I also looked at the deleted page, and it should have been deleted. Note that I believer there is no reason some of this information cannot be included elsewhere on the site, but consensus is that not notable enough for a stand-alone page.
148:
301:
and not myself. On the last point -- I admit to responding too often to comments on that AfD. I haven't been doing that as often in the last six months, and I'll try to keep my comments brief in the future and let others decide as should be done in a wiki. Thanks.
198:
with some solid prose, all backed up by reliable sources about the topic. Not all AfD comments were made before these improvements were completed. I do think that if the AfD had begun after my improvements were made, a different result would have been determined.
404:- In my opinion, Delete was not only a valid conclusion but the only valid conclusion. This appeal appears to be AFD round 2, not arguing that the closer made an error, but arguing that the community made an error, but that isn't how DRV works. As per Liz,
169:
75:
322:
when the AfD closed. But reading it now, it's clear they are leaning towards deletion, which I thought was worth mentioning. Either way, I appreciate you taking a less confrontational approach in debates.
264:
It's not clear what the basis for this appeal is. It reads like an AfD round 2. But I'm sure the appellant will soon reply, in length, to this, as they will to every other "Endorse" here.
202:
The AfD was lengthy, but it actually received relatively little participation all things considered, with only two editors recommending to delete. In addition, many new pages in
203:
48:
34:
43:
118:
207:
214:
this argument. The recreated article, although missing the prose I added, does go into more detail w.r.t. the results by adding the records of each throw
378:
should have been decided or it should have been relisted a third time, based on only having two delete views versus one keep view (excluding nominator).
114:
70:
282:, just to clarify on the first sentence, I was counting JoelleJay and Sandstein as the only two deletion recommendations aside from the nominator.
39:
469:
294:", and I don't think their view was to delete at all. If that !vote was considered as a delete, I don't think it should have been.
21:
177:
I had forgotten about this article until another editor tried to recreate it last week which brought it back to my attention.
187:. I deprodded it adding a few sources, but then the same editor nominated it for AfD (no problem with this process so far).
485:
297:
I was the first creator of the article, but the most recent creator and the impetus to be reminded of this article was
98:
17:
413:
385:. This was my first DRV, so maybe in retrospect I should have just asked for user/drafticiation to begin with. --
461:
215:
195:
191:
474:
446:
434:
417:
394:
365:
332:
311:
273:
230:
87:
382:
74:– Deletion endorsed. Per Liz and others, we will faciliate the good-faith request to restore to draft at
409:
298:
443:
456:
430:
83:
374:, thanks. I probably should have been more brief in my original post and just said I think
351:
390:
327:
307:
283:
268:
256:
226:
206:
were since created by other editors, making this article the only "missing" one listed in
180:
The article was initially PRODed hours after its creation, and the PROD description said,
252:
248:
183:
218:, so if we could combine our efforts I think the page would be even more improved.
426:
79:
386:
347:
324:
303:
279:
265:
222:
244:
371:
356:
190:
During the AfD, I significantly improved the article, from looking like
76:
Draft:2015 World Youth
Championships in Athletics – Boys' javelin throw
182:
No evidence that individual events at these youth competitions are
290:
2015 World Youth
Championships in Athletics – Boys' javelin throw
115:
2015 World Youth
Championships in Athletics – Boys' javelin throw
71:
2015 World Youth
Championships in Athletics – Boys' javelin throw
408:(but improvement will be required at submission for review).
251:, who did a thorough source analysis, as she always does;
318:
155:
141:
133:
125:
204:
316:I didn't count Geschichte for either side, as I
8:
346:This could have closed as No consensus but,
241:with only two editors recommending to delete
97:The following is an archived debate of the
63:
381:I've asked for userification of the page
288:I don't have a strong opinion about the
287:
240:
181:
7:
488:of the page listed in the heading.
28:
484:The above is an archive of the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
406:Authorize Restoration of Draft
243:- I see four views to delete:
88:22:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
1:
475:17:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
447:10:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
435:07:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
418:05:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
395:12:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
366:02:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
333:22:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
312:21:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
274:20:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
231:19:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
319:mentioned in my reply to you
511:
286:'s final point was that "
491:Please do not modify it.
104:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
425:. Consensus is clear.
101:of the page above.
498:
497:
208:the medal summary
502:
493:
472:
464:
364:
321:
194:to looking like
172:
167:
158:
144:
136:
128:
106:
64:
59:5 September 2024
53:
49:2024 September 6
35:2024 September 4
33:
510:
509:
505:
504:
503:
501:
500:
499:
489:
486:deletion review
468:
460:
410:Robert McClenon
355:
330:
317:
284:User:Geschichte
271:
168:
166:
163:
154:
153:
147:
140:
139:
132:
131:
124:
123:
102:
99:deletion review
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
508:
506:
496:
495:
480:
479:
478:
477:
449:
437:
420:
399:
398:
397:
379:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
328:
299:User:Stojan212
295:
269:
261:
260:
175:
174:
164:
151:
145:
137:
129:
121:
109:
108:
93:
92:
91:
90:
61:
56:
47:
44:2024 September
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
507:
494:
492:
487:
482:
481:
476:
473:
471:
465:
463:
458:
457:SportingFlyer
453:
450:
448:
445:
441:
438:
436:
432:
428:
424:
421:
419:
415:
411:
407:
403:
400:
396:
392:
388:
384:
380:
377:
373:
369:
368:
367:
363:
361:
360:
353:
349:
345:
342:
341:
334:
331:
326:
320:
315:
314:
313:
309:
305:
300:
296:
293:
291:
285:
281:
277:
276:
275:
272:
267:
263:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
242:
238:
235:
234:
233:
232:
228:
224:
219:
217:
211:
209:
205:
200:
197:
193:
188:
186:
185:
178:
171:
162:
157:
150:
143:
135:
127:
120:
116:
113:
112:
111:
110:
107:
105:
100:
95:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
490:
483:
467:
459:
451:
439:
422:
405:
401:
376:no consensus
375:
358:
357:
354:for review.
343:
289:
247:as the nom;
236:
220:
212:
201:
189:
179:
176:
103:
96:
69:
58:
239:as closer.
221:Thanks, ---
257:Geschichte
444:Alalch E.
253:Sandstein
249:JoelleJay
20: |
452:Endorse
440:Endorse
423:Endorse
402:Endorse
344:Endorse
237:Endorse
184:notable
170:restore
134:history
427:Stifle
255:; and
80:Daniel
387:Habst
348:Habst
325:Owen×
304:Habst
280:OwenX
266:Owen×
223:Habst
156:watch
149:links
52:: -->
16:<
431:talk
414:talk
391:talk
383:here
308:talk
292:page
245:Fram
227:talk
216:here
196:this
192:this
142:logs
126:edit
119:talk
84:talk
32:<
372:Liz
352:AFC
161:XfD
159:) (
22:Log
433:)
416:)
393:)
362:iz
310:)
302:--
229:)
86:)
78:.
42::
470:C
466:·
462:T
429:(
412:(
389:(
370:@
359:L
329:☎
306:(
278:@
270:☎
225:(
173:)
165:|
152:|
146:|
138:|
130:|
122:|
117:(
82:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.