Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alberto Gotay: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:22, 3 July 2015

Alberto Gotay

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

Not commenting on notability of article. I wanted other opinions to see if subject is considered to be notable. CrazyAces489 (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.

Delete - Even from not much effort, you can see he hasn't gotten considerably good third-party coverage and all my searches (News, Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found none of this aside from two links from his time as a cop. I'm open to drafting/userfying if wished but I'm not seeing any good notability for any of his occupations. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep I have searched all three links and know that he is well known as a martial artist, professor, and nypd sgt. CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you clarify why you are saying keep when you nominated the article? If he is well known then, what about the good coverage that he needs to be considered notable? SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the cover of 2 magazines and multiple articles [1] and a legend within the NYPD. [2] CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the source doesn't even use the word legend, let alone call him one. The source you had that said it was some guys blog. And no, the passing mention in that NY Times article isn't significant coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 July 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'll go through this one later, but a number of those sources will end up removed. We can't use a persons own self-published books as the major basis for the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. After non-RS and empty fluff is removed, we have a retired cop, now teaching at a college that doesn't pass WP:NACADEMICS. Sounds like a great guy, but not a notable one.

Comment Albert Gotay appeared on the cover of Official Karate in 1970 and 1971. [3] He also appeared in articles of Official Karate Magazine 9 times between 1973 and 1974. [4]

CrazyAces489 (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A picture isn't significant coverage. And "appearing" in articles really isn't either, especially when it's merely a passing mention, like some of the material you tried to include. We have to examine the significance. If your local newspaper mentions a high school football player getting a scholarship to play at a Division 3 school, he didn't magically become notable. And please stop using reference links. Just post the link, not in a ref format. Your footnotes interrupt the rest of the discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that he meets WP:GNG, WP:NSPORTS, or WP:MANOTE. Lacks significant independent coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment then vote It is expected, even hoped, that articles are developed while under AfD and if the amount of references and details can go up they can also go down. I have no issue with the changes of the article since they are explained in the edit summary and we can always look at older versions but I must say in this case the before and after versions of the article are so different it is shocking. It feels gutted and I can not help but think it would be better to discuss the shortcomings here than at the editing level. Just a point.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PREHSE, Gutting is something that NS36 can do well. I am quite sure he can gut quality articles with what appears to be sound logic. I don't even bother arguing with him. It simply takes too long and is too time consuming. He is a big reason as to why I don't even bother making large articles. If it can be gutted that quick after a hours of research. It was frustrating for me before. I simply don't even bother. I leave the articles at the stub level and allow other wikipedians do build them up. CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, comment on the article, not the editors. Since you want to talk about what people are or are not good at, let's talk about you're good at. You're good at ignoring the policy about reliable sources and spamming the articles with non-RS trash. You're also very good at ignoring the rules of grammar, especially with all your "he would..." entries. You're also pretty skilled at failing to actually read sources and either present information incorrectly or out of context. Perhaps if you spent a couple of hours actually reading the RS policy, instead of looking at self-published sources and blogs, you'd find that less of your edits fail to meet the standards required by Wikipedia. In short, if you publish poorly sourced material, it'll probably be viewed that way.Niteshift36 (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't tell me to comment on the article and not the editor and proceed to do just that. I am good at creating articles! That is what I do. This is of course volunteer work and so I won't spend more than a small amount of time on articles. If you gutting articles as per PRehse, continue on with it. I will go on my merry way. CrazyAces489 (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^Yes, I did. "Since you want to talk about..." was the key to that phrase. You want to talk about editors, so I'll play. No, you are NOT good at creating articles. Mass numbers don't make you good. Your articles are poorly written, poorly sourced and often deleted. We went through this before. Admins and experienced editors tried offering you guidance, but you've roundly ignored it. You say you only spend a small amount of time on an article, yet you spend a lot of time trying to get them kept. Maybe if you did it right the first time, you'd have to waste less of your precious time defending junk. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even better to discuss it at the article talk page. That said, unreliable sources are unreliable sources, regardless of how long they get discussed. Sources being misrepresented are still misrepresented. We could spend a lot of time discussing it....but the author decided to bring it here. He started the 7 day time clock. Since uninvolved editors are going to drop in an look at it, I think we should be removing non-RS's and trivial filler that is obscuring the notability issue. Digging up a passing mention from a RS that says the subject presented awards at a college awards banquet obfuscates the issue if an editor just glances at the source and doesn't look at the context. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I brought it here because it was Speedily Deleted a while back after NS36 left a comment on the talk page. CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try actually writing it correctly, with actual reliable sources, with more than trivial factoids filling it and maybe you'll find less of them going to AfD. I wasn't the only one sending your most recent round of articles to AfD, nor a I the only one here saying to delete. If you recall, I've improved your sourcing on other articles, trimmed out the trivia and they've been able to stay. Instead of acting all butt hurt over it, try doing fewer quality articles instead of a higher number of questionable ones. But I've suggested that before. I practically begged you to take one item and try to work it to a GA nomination so you'd learn what good sourcing etc is. But your response to me was : "I create so others can work". [5] You're ok with doing shoddy work, so stop acting like a victim when someone else cleans up what you don't care enough to do correctly. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the NY Times was considered to be a reliable source. PRehse, believed that certain sources like AikiNews were reliable to which you disagreed. [6] So apparently I am not the only one who disagrees with you. Past that I don't take kind to begging. I find it a bit uncomfortable. CrazyAces489 (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The NY Times is a reliable source. Unfortunately, what you used it for was trivial. AikiNews isn't even involved in this article, so who the heck cares about it. He disagreed with me, I decided to leave it and not go to RSN with it. But that was ANOTHER ARTICLE. Focus on this one. And begging.....grow up. I said "practically". I tried to help you grow as an editor. All you had were excuses. Instead of getting better, you took a break, then returned with the same crap factory you left. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't thing notability requirements, either general or specific, have been met.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 ::::::*First, comment on the article, not the editors. Since you want to talk about what people are or are not good at, let's talk about you're good at. You're good at ignoring the policy about reliable sources and spamming the articles with non-RS trash. You're also very good at ignoring the rules of grammar, especially with all your "he would..." entries. You're also pretty skilled at failing to actually read sources and either present information incorrectly or out of context. Perhaps if you spent a couple of hours actually reading the RS policy, instead of looking at self-published sources and blogs, you'd find that less of your edits fail to meet the standards '''required''' by Wikipedia. In short, if you publish poorly sourced material, it'll probably be viewed that way.[[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 16:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 ::You can't tell me to comment on the article and not the editor and proceed to do just that.   I am good at creating articles!  That is what I do.  This is of course volunteer work and so I won't spend more than a small amount of time on articles.  If you gutting articles as per PRehse, continue on with it.   I will go on my merry way.  [[User:CrazyAces489|CrazyAces489]] ([[User talk:CrazyAces489|talk]]) 22:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
+::::^Yes, I did. "Since you want to talk about..." was the key to that phrase. You want to talk about editors, so I'll play. No, you are NOT good at creating articles. Mass numbers don't make you good. Your articles are poorly written, poorly sourced and often deleted. We went through this before. Admins and experienced editors tried offering you guidance, but you've roundly ignored it. You say you only spend a small amount of time on an article, yet you spend a lot of time trying to get them kept. Maybe if you did it right the first time, you'd have to waste less of your precious time defending junk. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 22:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 ::*Even better to discuss it at the article talk page. That said, unreliable sources are unreliable sources, regardless of how long they get discussed. Sources being misrepresented are still misrepresented. We could spend a lot of time discussing it....but the author decided to bring it here. He started the 7 day time clock. Since uninvolved editors are going to drop in an look at it, I think we should be removing non-RS's and trivial filler that is obscuring the notability issue. Digging up a passing mention from a RS that says the subject presented awards at a college awards banquet obfuscates the issue if an editor just glances at the source and doesn't look at the context. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 20:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 :I brought it here because it was Speedily Deleted a while back after NS36 left a comment on the talk page.  [[User:CrazyAces489|CrazyAces489]] ([[User talk:CrazyAces489|talk]]) 14:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 ::*Try actually writing it correctly, with actual reliable sources, with more than trivial factoids filling it and maybe you'll find less of them going to AfD. I wasn't the only one sending your most recent round of articles to AfD, nor a I the only one here saying to delete. If you recall, I've improved your sourcing on other articles, trimmed out the trivia and they've been able to stay. Instead of acting all butt hurt over it, try doing fewer quality articles instead of a higher number of questionable ones. But I've suggested that before. I practically begged you to take one item and try to work it to a GA nomination so you'd learn what good sourcing etc is. But your response to me was : "I create so others can work". [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ron_Duncan&diff=653561322&oldid=653512848] You're ok with doing shoddy work, so stop acting like a victim when someone else cleans up what you don't care enough to do correctly. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 17:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 :I thought the NY Times was considered to be a reliable source.  PRehse, believed that certain sources like AikiNews were reliable to which you disagreed.  [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tadashi_Abe&diff=prev&oldid=669102336]   So apparently I am not the only one who disagrees with you.   Past that I don't take kind to begging.  I find it a bit uncomfortable.     [[User:CrazyAces489|CrazyAces489]] ([[User talk:CrazyAces489|talk]]) 22:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
+::*The NY Times is a reliable source. Unfortunately, what you used it for was trivial. AikiNews isn't even involved in this article, so who the heck cares about it. He disagreed with me, I decided to leave it and not go to RSN with it. But that was ANOTHER ARTICLE. Focus on this one. And begging.....grow up. I said "practically". I tried to help you grow as an editor. All you had were excuses. Instead of getting better, you took a break, then returned with the same crap factory you left. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 22:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 *'''Delete'''  I don't thing notability requirements, either general or specific, have been met.[[User:PRehse|Peter Rehse]] ([[User talk:PRehse|talk]]) 18:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)