Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 17

Dominic J. Marino, DVM (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe I have fixed any issues regarding notability. Katiecoggins (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: revised draft is at User:Katiecoggins/Dominic J. Marino. JohnCD (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there a date of birth, a place of birth, a nationality, or any of the other usual biographical information available from a reliable source?—S Marshall T/C 16:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Continue rewriting It's not the routine bio that is being asked for that would make him notable -- what would make him notable is the work he did. But I see no real evidence that he is. The references are self-published or local or directory listings. The article is written by repeating the same things several times over --a hallmark of promotional writing. The awards are minor and local. The accomplishments are minor and local--and qualified by "one of the first" , "helped develop", "one of the few" and so on -- another hallmark of promotional writing. The institute he founded is local. He has held no national positions, he has never been on a veterinary school faculty. But checking Google Scholar, there are a number of publications in good journals with citation figures in the 20s, which along with his book, might prove him a specialist in his field according to WP:PROF. That the article does not mention these implies it is the work of an editor with COI who does not understand Wikipedia. There are the similarly promotional articles by the same editor at Canine Chiari-like malformation, New York Veterinary Foundation, and Long Island Veterinary Specialists, all of which are somewhat dubious. DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to

I have taken the liberty of putting these into a collapsed box to combine, I hope you don't mind, Dolovis. Any way, I am the deleting admin, and I deleted these sub-stubs per

reliable sources and consequently are BLPs that we can't actually expand into proper articles, I took the action of deleting the latest batch. In doing so, I invited Dolovis on his talk page to recreate if he could find sources to create a viable stub article. Resolute 15:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Repsonse to Resolute: I do object to Resolute hiding names and mini-bios of these notable sports persons. All of these articles are proper stub-bios about notable ice hockey players. Each players meets the criteria of

stub article is to provide adequate context for other editors to expand upon. That is what I have done. A stub article is the starting point for most new articles. It can not, and should not, be expected that every new article will be fully expanded to form a good article on its first edit. To mass-delete numerous stub-bios about notable sports persons, after other editors have removed the BLPPRODs, and after only a couple of days of existence, is contrary to wiki-policy. Dolovis (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Dolovis, could you pick one of the articles you have listed here? I'll undelete that for you if you agree to expand it as much as you can. If you are able to expand it at least a fair amount, then I think you would have a stronger case for undeletion. NW (Talk) 16:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To allow for a fair deletion review, I think that all of these articles should be temporarily un-deleted so other editors can judges for themselves the quality of the articles; but if you will just un-delete one I will select Alexander Galchenyuk who is a former professional ice hockey player with a 21 year pro career; played in the 1998 Olympic games with Team Belarus; played in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships with Team Belarus; played 9 seasons of major league hockey in the Russian Superleague; and he is currently an assistant coach with the Sarnia Sting. [1] Dolovis (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And that one was your largest creation, at two sentences. Two sentences that did not mention his Olympic or pro experience. Or any biographical history beyond his birthdate. My offer on your talk page stands, and as you have indicated a willingness to expand this article, I will restore for you. As I will any other article you choose to put a real effort into. I do have to wonder why you didn't choose one of the French national team members, however... Resolute 17:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

French IIHF World Championship players are also deemed notable per

WP:NHOCKEY, and Resolute knew very well the acceptable quality of both the Alexander Galchenyuk article and the player before he deleted it. The edit comment by the 3rd party who removed the BLPPROD reads: "Are you freaking kidding us? He played NINETEEN PRO SEASONS". Dolovis (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I think you misunderstand how NHOCKEY works. Meeting the criteria doesn't guarantee an article or provide notability. NHOCKEY is just a guideline to help you understand when there is likely news articles supporting notability. You still have to actually go and find them to proove it. As it says at the top of the page meeting the guideline does not mean an article has to be kept or can't be deleted. -DJSasso (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, meeting the criteria of an applicable SNG is generally taken as demonstrating the existing of an assertion of significance sufficient to prevent A7 deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't disagree at all. Was commenting on his comment about an article being notable because it met nhockey. Don't disagree that it is certainly an assertion that it may be notable per A7. -DJSasso (talk)

You are still

missing the point. Your continued references to the BLPPRODs is immaterial. As is your incorrect argument above that you are being asked to create "good articles on the first edit". What you are being asked to do, and what you are simply choosing not to, is to put effort into these articles. The kittens analogy is apt, and you would be mindful to consider it. Your statements above on Galchenyuk above offers twice what you bothered to put into the article. Why? The articles you are creating offer little context, no substance and no idea of what point in time they refer to. Instead of taking the time to find a couple non-trivial sources on these players, you just whip out whatever shows up on a roster list somewhere and leave a mess for someone else to fix. We both know that you won't put the effort in to make viable articles, stubs or otherwise unless pressured to. Thus, here we are, because you are wasting the time of several editors at this point. Resolute 19:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

(ec)All the articles were single line (two depending on the size of your window). So its a bit disingeneous to state that he is incorrect and that there was more. There wasn't more. Infoboxes are not excuses to not put any information in prose. External links as well are not sources (though they can be uses as them if they are put as inline sources).

WP:BLP is something that it looks like you need to read. Requirements for creating articles for living people are much more stringent than creating stubs for non human subjects. For example creators of BLPs are expected to source specific statements about their subjects. And should ideally have sources to also indicate their notability when they create them. No one is asking you to have a fully developed article. They are asking you to comply with BLP so that one line articles that could theoretically be harmful to a living person are not created. Its hardly too much to ask you to take two minutes to actually do more than just copy names off a roster and start an article. I would also note alot of the infoboxes on the types of articles in question are often empty and on a number of occasions you have created articles with references that don't actually lead to an existing webpage or talk about the player they are supposedly referencing. -DJSasso (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• WP:KITTENS. I'll put effort into reviewing a deletion if there's been some effort gone into the article. There hasn't, so I won't; it would be less effort to re-create these microscopic sub-stubs as proper articles than to debate the matter here. (For closure purposes this should be read as endorse without prejudice to re-creation of a proper article.)—S Marshall T/C 16:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The Wayne Gretzky article was created with the five words; "The Great One". Now retired.[2]. Most every article starts as a stub, and as Wikipedia is a community project, it is not solely on the article's creator to deliver a finished article. Despite what Resolute claims, every article that I have created has context, substance, and non-trivial sources on these players. And if you disagree with me, the proper course is to nominate the article for deletion, pursuant to Wikipedia:Deletion policy, so that the community can decide if it should be deleted or not. No single admin should have the unilateral power to speedy delete an article that, in his personal opinion, is not worthy. Dolovis (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• With the effort you put into that reply, you could have created a proper article. And then I would very happily be defending you at AfD or DRV. Seriously: why not put this thought and effort into content creation?—S Marshall T/C 23:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that these articles should be sent to AfD were the community would decide their fate, and not just 'speedy deleted' based on the unilateral whim of an admin. The fact is that none of these 15 articles would need your defense in an AfD as they would all certainly be a "Strong Keep" under the criteria of

WP:NHOCKEY. Dolovis (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Again since you appear to ignore it every time someone tells you.

WP:GNG and not just roster listings etc as you have. -DJSasso (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

If notability is the issue, then I encourage you to un-delete these articles and nominate them for AfD, as that would be the proper procedure to following pursuant to WP:Deletion policy. Dolovis (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't the issue, I was just commenting on your comment that it would be a definite keep. The issue is creating BLP articles without good sources. Unsourced BLP info can be deleted immediately. Creating one line articles on BLPs without any sources on it that contain significant info on them creates a big issue with BLP. All anyone is asking you is to take a few extra minutes and find a source beyond a roster listing and then source some information in the article when you create it. It doesn't have to be a fully fledged article. But it should contain some information. You have given more information in this discussion on some of these players than you did in any of the articles which leads us to a no context situation in some of them. -DJSasso (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't listening to what S Marshal, or indeed, what no less than SIX different editors are telling you: you aren't putting any effort into these sub-stubs. You are just creating a mess and leaving it to someone else to fix. That is the reasoning behind my deletion: to clean up the mess. I respect Geni's criticism below, and assure them that this application of IAR is a one time effort. Anything more would easily become pointy. The question, Dolovis, is whether you will respect the advice of several users who are asking you to be more prudent in your article creations. Resolute 20:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Due to their very nature professional sports players tend to generate an unreasonable amount of coverage and thus it's not really legitimate to argue that they can't be sourced. Mass deleting articles because you don't like the way a user is creating them is not an apropriate use of admin powers. The issue should be taken up with the user and if that fails the normal disspute resolution procedures.©Geni 23:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy overturn. Out-of-process deletions not citing any valid speedy deletion criteria. There appears to be no dispute that the individual articles each included assertions of significance sufficient to survive A7; such assertions have been present in each of the articles I spot-checked, and the deletion notes would not otherwise have needed to cite IAR as supporting deletion. The stated rationale == "per WP:IAR. Sub-stub BLP with very little hope of being expanded or properly referenced" -- is on its face not a reasonable basis for speedy deletion, particular since, in most of these cases, the issue seems not to be the availablity of sources, the the ease of access to English-language sources. "Little hope" for improvement does not meet the strict standards we set for speedy deletion; "no reasonable hope" is more accurate. The removal of the relevant BLPPRODs by other editors who apparently did not insert sourcing into the articles should receive some attention, but speedy article deletion is not the appropriate response to whatever misbehavior of that sort may have occurred. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn all and AfD any thought not notable. A player for a national team in any sport is notable, as we have always held. Deleting an article that asserted it via speedy A7 is not right. There are two possible proper things to do with low quality stubs that nonetheless indicate clear notability : one is to improve them, the other is to ask someone else to at least by tagging it. A stub that identifies someone and indicates the importance is not a sub-stub. It's a genuine, valid stub, and nobody need feel the least bit blameworthy for making them. Some people help Wikipedia by writing a few good articles; some write sketchier articles, but fewer of them. As the encyclopedia is a continuing project relying on the principle of communal sourcing, to start articles and hope others will finish them is acceptable procedure, and I would not even ask someone who did it to change the way they work, I commend Dolovis for creating valid stubs. I commend him all the more that he has greatly expanded them. Some of them were challenged very early, before he could reasonably have had a chance--exactly the way we do not want to treat editors. It would be very regrettable if the personal view of a few editors—totally unsupported by policy pr consensus—that stubs are unhealthy, were permitted to affect Wikipedia; the very use of the term sub-stub or the like is a signal that improper criteria are possibly being used. Not even a source is necessary for a valid stub, though of course it is necessary that one be added. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn the right place for the issue of mass stub creation may be ANI or RfC/U, but speedy deletion isn't the right way forward unless the articles actually meet the criteria. These don't seem to. Hobit (talk) 03:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Final comment I fully expected my decision to delete would be controversial, but it was done with the aim of improving Wikipedia. The improvement Dolovis has made to Alexander Galchenyuk as a direct result of this action is precisely what I was hoping for, and as such I consider my effort time well spent. I respect the emerging consensus here, and will undelete the remaining articles. It is my hope that we will see similar efforts in the future. If so, then Wikipedia is better for it. Resolute 14:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn all. The criteria for speedy deletion are "the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus support to, at their discretion, bypass deletion discussion and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media". To unilaterally delete an article in a situation where no CSD applies is therefore to act against the consensus formed out of thousands of hours of policy discussions, and to privilege the judgement of one administrator over the express will of the community. IAR is an inadequate justification for such deletion except in the most obvious, most urgent, and least controversial cases... and these were not. Thparkth (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

iPad 2 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The unadvertised deletion discussion was closed by a non-administrator (who had already participated in the discussion I should add) after only three people had participated. The merger was then enforced by an admin with full page protection The merger left out key information and dispersed iPad 2 throughout the article making it very difficult to read. Previously