Joseph Kropschot ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The Joseph Kropschot page was originally deleted with the reason that non-professional fighters are not notable. That reason was used as the reason for the current deletion, but is no longer valid. Joseph Kropschot is now a professional fighter and is definitely noteworthy. He is fighting in a nationally televised card this coming Saturday, EBI Combat Jiu Jitsu 17, available on PPV and UFC Fight Pass. If there is a reason he is considered un-noteworthy, I would like that reason updated, ie not enough professional fights, not enough national exposure, not ranked highly enough, etc. But quoting the original deletion, when the reason for the original deletion is no longer valid, doesn't make sense. Thanks. NorCal4Life ( talk) 19:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC) reply

IMO it is not clear in deletion review header info what is the decision that is being reviewed. In this case there is not even an XfD link in the header (at least none shows currently). I think the decision being reviewed is the 21 September 2018 deletion by User:Athaenara of page Joseph Kropschot, with reason " G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: ref Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Kropschot, more at User talk:NorCal4Life". It relates to 2017 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Kropschot. It seems this cannot be discussed properly, at least by non-administrators, if the recently deleted version is not made available for consideration. -- Doncram ( talk) 21:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC). Could someone please provide a version of the deleted article for review, at least temporarily, during this DR. -- Doncram ( talk) 22:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC) --It was provided to Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2018 September 25, thanks. -- Doncram ( talk) 00:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. It seems the deletion review nominator has a point, that the re-created article does not suffer the faults of the article which was deleted in 2017. -- Doncram ( talk) 21:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Also, the deletion review nominator NorCal4Life did very politely contact the deleting administrator at User talk:Athaenara#Joseph Kropschot page, where one cursory response was given (""Going pro in 2018", had his first professional fight and won it. I don't know why you're promoting him. My best advice is to wait until he acquires (if he does) sufficiently more notability to survive another AfD"), then NorCal4Life provided substantial more information, then they were advised "I recommend posting your concerns on Wikipedia:Deletion review." Offhand, this instance of behavior seems rude and verging upon, if not over, the line for conduct unbecoming an administrator. It is quite onerous to force a regular editor (newbie-ish?) to figure out deletion review process which is obscure and dysfunctional (for example the deleted article is available only to administrators), when restoring the new article and allowing development or opening a new AFD would be very reasonable as an option. Instead, this is unfriendly and obfuscatory. My 2 cents, i am not an administrator myself. -- Doncram ( talk) 22:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC) reply

I don't see Wikipedia disagreements about deletion as one-on-one contests between editors and administrators, because we're a large fairly well-coordinated project with active venues for community review. Whether or not you think I behaved badly, NorCal4Life followed my recommendation to post here, initiating a potentially productive discussion which can lead to a reasonable outcome. – Athaenara ✉ 22:45, 25 September 2018 (UTC) reply

BTW, I posted a temporary copy of the article on this page's talk page. – Athaenara ✉ 22:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Thank you for that. I appreciate your polite reply here, but I disagree that it is reasonable to suggest a new(ish) user with about 50 edits should undertake to figure out deletion review, which is a minefield. It is not one-on-one, rather it is one-against-many. In practice DR is about reviewing administrator actions in order to criticize them, as opposed to fixing editing situations, and is highly biased against finding any problem. It is more about circling the wagons and reaffirming among administrators that fellow administrators are reasonable. The percentages are highly against the new editor, who doesn't care about the administrators but rather is just plugging along about a content topic of interest to them, where they patiently waited for a year after getting feedback in a previous AFD about what mattered. NorCal4Life is lucky here that I happen to have taken up their case, facilitating it along I think rather unusually.

Okay, given the new version and the direction given in the previous AFD, it seems reasonable to me that the editor thinks the new version is okay/good. So, I affirm my "Overturn" !vote. It should be restored to mainspace. It could be AFD'd, sure, and that would be the appropriate way to deliver refined feedback to the editor about notability of MMA fighters, as opposed to having irrelevant-to-the-editor discussion about whether an administrator was justified or not in some decision which provided no good feedback to the editor. They also could quite likely benefit from friendly editors helping to develop the article that is under attack. And it would be reasonable to let the upcoming fight happen and get more coverage, too, before a new AFD. The point made to the editor was that amateur=not-notable, and the subject is having their 2nd pro bout now. Any further refinement in feedback, perhaps that pro doesn't suffice but quality of coverage matters, is in effect pointing out that the first AFD was wrong. Let the editor have a chance with the article being developed, and with a 2nd AFD involving potentially friendly editors. Otherwise this is coming down too hard. -- Doncram ( talk) 00:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• I undeleted the page (referencing the discussion here), removed the speedy deletion tag, and left a message on User talk:PRehse#Joseph Kropschot as that was the user who had tagged it for WP:CSD#G4 deletion. I do think a third *second AfD might help settle the notability question more fully. – Athaenara ✉ 02:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC) ( *Self-corrected. A. 06:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC) ) reply

Thank you, again. I think this is quite reasonable, and I think this should end this deletion review. Like I said I don't think the DR nominator wants to criticize, I think they just want a chance with the article. And I think they need to be willing to discuss notability beyond what was covered in the first AFD, and perhaps the article will be AFD'd again, I hope with some delay for the 2nd pro bout supposedly happening this coming weekend. The restored article was immediately Twinkle-tagged for PROD deletion which I removed, and also I removed a BLP PROD tag, after easily creating an inline reference. I myself am not knowledgeable about notability standards for athletes like this; I arrived here just from browsing at DR and perceiving this to be an unfortunate situation, until now resolved. However, the guy delivered "a clinic in mixed martial arts" in just 42 seconds, in this YouTube video of their last amateur bout, perhaps the first MMA bout I have ever watched, pretty interesting. Thanks, sincerely, -- Doncram ( talk) 05:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC) reply