Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael D'Orazio

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. LFaraone 01:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D'Orazio

[edit]
Michael D'Orazio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While he barely meets WP:NHOCKEY by being a a First All Star team member in Canadian college hockey. He fails WP:GNG in that there are no in depth references that are more than passing mentions. DJSasso (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete They only technically, and barely, meet NHOCKEY because of poor wording within the SNG. The CIS is pretty much the last stop for most hockey careers and very few players who play Canadian college/university go on to become notable. A major NCAA award winner may have a decent claim, but in this case, the SNG is flawed. I cant find much in the way of non-routine coverage, and what I can is in the form of blogs. Fails WP:GNG. Resolute 15:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep – Specifically meets criteria #4 of WP:NHOCKEY as a major collegiate hockey league First-Team all-star. More than just being a conference all-star, this athlete was named to the CIS All-Canadian First Team as the nation-wide best university player at his position. And yes, he also meets GNG with independent, reliable and significate coverage including [1] [2][3][4][5][6][7] Appears to be a bad faith nomination in retaliation for my comments in disagreement with the nominator here. Dolovis (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not retaliatory at the least. Why you make things so personal is beyond me. Link 2, 3, 5, 6 are all press releases and not independent. Something you might want to start keeping in mind is oursportscentral.com is a press release aggregation site, they say as much at the bottom of every page. Articles from there are never independent. Link 7 is a blog. And link 1 is a play by play of a game and not in depth about the subject. You really need to learn what valid sources are. And of course you always miss the part of WP:NHOCKEY that says "The meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." -DJSasso (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your selective “quote” actually comes from NSPORTS (not NHOCKEY) where it says above, and in Bold font, “The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below.” [emphasis mine] As I have already been demonstrated, reliable sources establish that this subject does meet GNG in addition to meeting the sport specific NHOCKEY criteria – hence my vote for Speedy Keep. Dolovis (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Telling me I selectively quote when you have taken your quote completely out of context. The sentence you quote is saying you have to provide sources to proove a article meets either GNG or NSPORTS. ie you have to provide sources that he was a CIS First team all star to proove he meets NHOCKEY. My quote is about the guideline itself, in that meeting the guideline does not make an article a keep automatically. BTW NHOCKEY is part of NSPORTS so what applies to NSPORTS applies to NHOCKEY. And you haven't demonstrated that any reliable sources exist, you have only provided non-independent sources and blogs. None of which establish notability. -DJSasso (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are you getting upset? My quote was made in response to your quote, and no, it is not out of context, however your quote is selective as demonstrated by looking at the full-quote which reads: “Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept.” Further, all of my listed sources provide reliable and significant coverage, and there can be no doubt that #1, #6, and #7 are independent, and no #7 is not a blog. Dolovis (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your quote is completely out of context, you used it in a way that insinuated that meeting NHOCKEY meant and article should be speedy kept, which is not at all what that quote is talking about. Secondly my quote was quoting the part that was relevant to what I was saying, that just because he meets the guideline doesn't mean it should be speedy kept as you were trying to argue. Secondly being independent isn't the only requirement, they also have to be in depth and non-routine. #1 fails both of those. #6 fails the routine coverage part in that its a local paper covering a local team star. And #7 is a well known blog site or digital magazine as they like to call it. -DJSasso (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you have established that you disagree with my opinion, and I disagree with your characterization of the quality of my sources which are all demonstrability reliable and significant. In addition, #1 The Brantford Press article is clearly independent and not routine coverage as it deals specifically and in-depth with the subject; #6 The London Free Press article is also clearly independent, and provides a non-routine, in-depth feature on the subject; as well as #7 The Good Point article (a respected and independent on-line sports publication which maintains an editorial staff and so by definition is not a “blog”) also provides independent, non-routine coverage, which deals specifically and in-depth about the subject. Dolovis (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you even read the The Brantford Press article? Nowhere in the article does it actually talk about him. It only talks about what he did in the game (and even then only a couple sentences). That is the very definition of a routine trivial coverage. -DJSasso (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Good Point article is basically a blog - albeit a decent one. The rest are basically local coverage, save for the NHL.com story. On that argument, nearly any junior hockey player could be considered notable, except for ample precedent that we do not consider them so. Resolute 21:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, there are many exceptional junior hockey players who according to GNG could be considered notable, but this article additionally meets the precedent of inclusion via NHOCKEY criteria #4. Dolovis (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I noted above, it meets on a technicality, and only because the section is poorly worded. We discussed whether winning a major award in the NCAA was sufficient, but I don't recall a discussion for CIS, and suspect the result of the NCAA discussion was introduced using language that overreached. I've seen a few articles lately that have been created based on technical passes of NHOCKEY despite the players being otherwise not-notable. Given we have not done so in some time, I think it is time to reconsider aspects of the SNG. Resolute 22:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would add that I don't consider CIS to be "major collegiate hockey" any more than I would consider the USHL to be "major junior". From a hockey perspective, CIS is pretty much a dead end; a way for former junior players to get a few more years while getting an education before turning to the real world. Resolute 22:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • By your train of thought, then the majority of Olympians would not be considered notable because, unless they achieved a medal in a major event, they too generally face a `dead end` in sports before turning to the real world. But that isn`t how WP:ATHLETE defines notability. An outstanding pinnacle reached by an individual, if verifiable, is enough to establish notability per WP:ATHLETE. It does not matter if that person goes no further with the sport. Canadian Interuniversity Sport (CIS), being the national governing body of university sport in Canada, is certainly recognized as “a major collegiate hockey league” which is why the consensus chose to word NHOCKEY as it is, without excluding CIS. Dolovis (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Dolovis' unsupported assertion notwithstanding, very few people claiming to be knowledgeable in hockey claim that the CIS is a "major collegiate hockey league." It's nothing of the sort, and indeed there are more professional players from Division II and III NCAA hockey (neither of which are "major collegiate") than ever make the pros from Canadian colleges. This isn't the first time that Dolovis has chosen to reinterpret NHOCKEY to his own ends (claiming that "Rookie of the Month" constituted a "preeminent honor" on a par with being an All-American or a top ten all-time career scorer being the most egregious one of my recollection), and I suggest we simply not play ball. Ravenswing 01:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Talk about unsupported assertations... "there are more professional players from Division II and III NCAA hockey (neither of which are "major collegiate") than ever make the pros from Canadian colleges" is absolutely untrue. Do you have any statistical source to support your assertion? And by the way, I have never claimed "Rookie of the Month" constituted a "preeminent honor" - Where do you get this stuff? But at least you are honest and making it apparent that your "delete" vote is more about "not playing ball" with me than it is about GNG or NHOCKEY. Dolovis (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny Dolovis, but weren't you chastising DJSasso in the other AFD for responding to every comment? At any rate, I disagree with Ravenswing in part in that I can buy the argument that you think CIS is "major collegiate hockey". I disagree with that argument as well, of course, but both positions are good faith, at the very least. Resolute 03:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not funny at all. When a discouraging comment is directed at me, of course I will respond. It wouldn't be right to leave his comments about me hanging out there as if they are true. Dolovis (talk) 03:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, for openers, let's examine why you feel the assertion about Canadian college players making the pros is "absolutely untrue." What is YOUR statistical source for making such a claim? Or is this -- like your recent insistence that the "Seattle Totems" were a done deal -- just another Something You Believe Very Strongly without any factual evidence one way or another? That being said, I accept that it might be difficult for you to believe that anyone could decide in an AfD on the merits as opposed to personalities. As far as your attempts to rewrite NHOCKEY go, in these [8] [9] AfDs you claim that being an all-star in the WJC meets criterion #4, in this [10] AfD you claim making the All-Academic team confers notability, in this [11] AfD you claim that the "best defensive forward" trophy is a preeminent honor, in this [12] AfD you claim that being selected at the top of the midget draft going into juniors somehow passes NHOCKEY, in this [13] AfD you assert that merely playing in the WJC meets NHOCKEY, in this [14] AfD you attempt to redefine what is or is not a major junior league against a recent consensus rejecting your premise (and, not for the only time, to claim that those opposing your position did so out of bias) ... and that's quite enough backtracking for 2 AM. Ravenswing 05:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand corrected. This is funny. I find it humorous that you somehow think that it is a good debating tactic to make unsupportable claims, and then attack the person who challenges you on it. I also think it is funny that of the past AfD's you have pulled out to demonstrate my “attempts to rewrite NHOCKEY”, 5 of 7 of your examples subjects are now accepted as notable! Voicing my opinion in an AfD can not be construed as “attempting to re-write NHOCKEY”, but even if true, so what? Voicing opinions to reach a consensus is the way Wikipedia discussions are supposed to work. I believe that if we are able to put personalities aside and take a dispassionate view of the independent, significant, and reliable sources, this subject would meet GNG. Dolovis (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're sounding rather like Humpty Dumpty -- that if you just keep on saying "unsupported, unsupported," perception will trump reality. (It sure beats, I expect, backing up your "absolutely untrue" statement with reliable sources.) That being said, of course you're aware that those subjects considered notable did that on the strength of meeting the GNG, not on the basis of your unilateral interpretations of NHOCKEY. Ravenswing 05:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Resolute and Ravenswing. I would encourage Dolovis to, instead of creating articles on barely (and often times, not even) notable minor leaguers/college award winners, focus on adding articles on clearly notable players. For example, we are missing thousands of players who have played in high-level European leagues, the World Championships, and the Olympic Games. Why not focus on those instead? --Hockeyben (talk - contribs) 16:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like you, I am a volunteer. In addition to editing to improve articles, I have also created over three thousand articles for "clearly notable" players, with maybe a few dozen articles for players who I believe meet GNG, if not NHOCKEY. Only a very small percentage of the articles I have created have faced an AfD challenge, with most such articles continuing to exist on Wikipedia. I agree that there are many deserving subjects who should have Wikipedia articles, and if you have an interest in creating and improving the articles for European and IIHF tournament players, then I encourage you to do so. Dolovis (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing verdict to Keep after further examining the "further reading" section of the article. Based on those sources, D'Orazio meets the GNG in my eyes.
@Dolovis: I am aware that the vast majority of the articles you've created are easily notable. Thank you for creating them and I hope you continue to create more in the future :). --Hockeyben (talk - contribs) 21:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any particular reason why those sources were lazily added to a "further reading" section, and not used to expand the article into something useful? Not that anyone needs to respond, I already know the answer and it is a rhetorical question. Resolute 21:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at the sources and I would disagree that he meets GNG. Patken4 (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know except that meeting any of those conditions on any of the SNGs doesn't automatically mean keep. You have to back the notability up with sources. And as has been shown the sources you have provided don't. Not even remotely. -DJSasso (talk) 11:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria #1 of NCOLLATH would seem to be written more towards a winner of the Heisman Trophy, Dick Howser Trophy or Hobey Baker Award, at least to me. If consensus has been reached elsewhere that NCOLLATH would also apply to CIS athletes particularly with regards to ice hockey, please provide that information. Patken4 (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hasn't made pro, not even drafted. Not a member of a major championship squad. If this fellow meets NHOCKEY guidelines, then the guidelines need to be tightened up. PKT(alk) 13:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. The reference to NCAA is as an example only. If NCOLLATH was intended to be exclusively for NCAA athletes then it would be titled "NCAA athletes" and not "College athletes". Also NCOLLATH states that winning a "national award" meets its standard, rather than winning an "NCAA national award".
  • Strongest Possible Delete It is shown in this debate that D'Orazio doesn't meet WP:GNG because the sources available are all press releases and local in-game coverage, which isn't acceptable coverage. The sources Dolovis keeps bringing up were successfully rebutted yet he/she keeps trying to defend the article "using the same sources", instead of listening to Resolute and others advise to check for any extra sourcing to see if it meets GNG, thus saving the article from deletion. That either means that Dolovis is ignorant and lazy to find the sourcing, or there is none. This debate is ridiculous and I hope the closing administrator would take it to account. Secret account 00:58, 21 July 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_D'Orazio&oldid=1138076108"