Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicente Locaso

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 Keep. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 11:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vicente Locaso

Done– (View log • Stats)

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

This will be a batch nomination of numerous recently created footballer bio's that are unreferenced, have no claim to notability, have the same structure (XY (date range) was a Zoo-ian footballer, have the same author, and are substubs:

Done

Done

Done

Done

Done

Done

Done

Done

Done

Done

Done

Done

Done

(Non-admin closure) The article already existed, changed into redirect--Ymblanter (talk) 07:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Done

Done

Done

Done

Done

Done (google translate sucked for that so still needs translating but it contains some sourced info at least)

Done

Done

Done

Done

Done

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to no explained notability. Ducknish (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as unreferenced, so no verified notability. I'd also suggest the closing admin has a stern word with the creator to prevent such issues in future. Giant Snowman 12:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do. I asked the author to add more information, but he seems not interested in doing that (see his talk page). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep following valiant efforts to try and improve these Godawful articles. Any that can't should be brought back on an individual basis. Giant Snowman 13:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe I don't mind a dozen or so as I always like editing a wide range of articles but not sure i can do many more!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Editor has recently created ~300 articles. All unreferenced. All subjects are dead. Majority are from eastern Europe. They give nationality, year of birth and death, and a profession (poet, writer, translator, politician, football). They contain categories for which no info in that article backs up adding the category. Bgwhite (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- AGF, they seem like translations, and probably are mostly notable. But he refuses to add few more words to prove that :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see ~1,500, not 300 new articles. They don't create talk pages either. I saw his reply to you on his talk page... essentially get lost and don't waste my time. Grrrrr. Bgwhite (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I regularly tag and assess new Poland-related articles. This week this took three times as longer, and for most of his articles I was AGFing on notability - I don't have time to check all of them. The footballers were the most problematic, even on pl wiki many did not have any notability claims. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and consider individually only the ones that do not have equivalent articles with a reference on the other encyclopedias. (From a sampling, all or most of them are Russian and have decent articles in the Russian encyclopedia, usually better than the one in the Polish encyclopedia--I do not know why AnomieBOT put "expand Polish" on them--possibly it looks for a Latin alphabet version?) I think this method of doing one sentence translations is really foolish, and I wouldn't mind discussing the behavior at an/i or somewhere. He certainly needs to stop. (In fact, I've left him a formal warning about non-constructive editing) It's acceptable not to complete translation, but at least enough should be added to show the notability--the sketch will be helpful until somebody finishes it. But the solution is not to delete the articles. The solution is to take a few minutes and include at least the minimum of text, using if necessary G Translate to help, and copying over the references--there's usually no point in trying to translate them. I do that for anything I see in a subject that even remotely interest me-- but football is not one of them. I'll sometimes do the whole job if its a subject and language I understand well enough--I think at least half the regular eds here can do this for at least one language--or, to be more precise, at least half the regular editors who are not recent graduates of the US education system. Even if I can't understand the language of the obviously best article, sometimes there's another in the list that I can and that gives at least a little. (And the data in an adequate bio infobox can be immediately translated--that's the purpose of the controlled data there.) DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I agree with DGG 100%. As he says there's nothing wrong with not completing a translation but a few sourced lines saying something like "From 1948 to 1953 he played for Spartak Moscow and then joined Dynamo in 1956 as a coach" would go a long way. One has to accept that yes we are missing millions of potential articles but it isn't going to suddenly propel thousands of new editors to expand them. I've proved that in the way I've created placeholder stubs in the past, that some get expanded but a lot remain in the database and might be years before anybody cares to bother with them. In the meantime if they have a fact or two and are sourced they immeasureably improve wikipedia as a resource even if still stubby. I've begun expanding these sub stubs and am convinced they are notable and think it would be counterproductive to delete them without researching them but advise the creator to change his approach.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mind helping with a constructive approach; I'll try to expand the Polish ones to show the notability, but I may be a bit busy for a day or two. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As if we haven't enough to do already eh?..♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just 300 or so articles to expand, courtesy of our mass substub translator... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 07:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Curious comment some days ago. emijrp (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is more efficient if you start them without having to enter in the player name. But I didn't say to create empty articles without sources either. I could generate them quicker with a source and a few facts if they share a common source and content which most of them seem to being associated with Spartak Moscow. Speed isn't an issue for me, I'd happily except 50,000 sourced stubs a day, but no content and lack of sources is. I'm baffled as to why you were clearly reading the google translate for categories but were unwilling to add any content. You could at least add some of the clubs they played for if you can manage to add so many categories... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to your efforts I am fine with withdrawing the nom. I do hope that the editor who substubbed them won't be mass creating such problematic articles again, however. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the sad outcome of this though is that a] Emirj has shown no interest in this discussion or any indication that he cares about these articles and given no help whatsoever. b] Has shown himself to be unapproachable and unfriendly and unwilling to accept advice or discuss articles he creates. And he has immense potential too as an editor...♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a shame. He has done a lot of good work, but this is a collaborative project. One has to be able to work with others, instead of creating more work for them, even if one's action are good intentioned. A certain hell proverb comes to mind here... sigh. Emir, we would really like to work with you and help you out, but you have to accept that we are here, too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't congratulate me first for the stub creation and later create a notability storm. The same for Dr Blofeld, first adding fire to the stub creation (link above) and later saying the opposite. I'm dissapointed with you both. I will try to fix the articles I created, but I'm not happy with your confusing behaviour. emijrp (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do not we stop discussing behavior of each other and turn to articles instead.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding fire? Eh? I and Piotrus encourage you to create new articles but its particularly problematic with biographies as something does really need to be said about them even if very brief. And when you create 1500 biographies the amount of work needed to even get a glimmer of something encyclopedic into them is staggering, work that the Polish and Russian wikiprojects cannot possibly accomplish. I've been guilty of this many a time and in my desperation ignored just how much work it entails to expand them. Its a highly optimistic perspective. There's a fine line between a sub stub which contains no info and a sourced stub much like your Spanish building articles which I personally think are very productive and even if it might be years before they are expanded they are set up nicely. I support your biography stubs if they contain one fact and one source bare minimum. With the Russian footballers for instance xxx was a Russian footballer. He played for Spartak Moscow from 1935 to 1940 and ended his playing career at Dynamo Kiev, where he later became coach (source), End. Would make a huge difference I think. Something like Mikhail Tovarovsky. And that is easily achievable by looking in the infoboxes on other wikis as you clearly did to create the categories. You could have another tab open for google search to immediately retrieve a source and add it, you could create articles pretty efficiently that way, especially if they all played for the same club and there is a common source.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If they are all unreferenced, get rid of them all. There are plenty of referenced Articles on athletes. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - Most of these are referenced and clearly notable, and probably all of them are. I fixed up Bernasconi and Poblome, and it looks like other editors have cleaned up the others. It would be incredibly silly to delete these en masse - feel free to nominate individual articles that you think don't pass our notability guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 04:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all As per Jogurney,Dr. Blofeld and DGG.Most of them appear notable and are referenced even if one wishes to nominate it can be done on an individual basis.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:54, 13 May 2012 (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.