Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magdalena Zamolska

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

.

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. While the keep and delete vote counts here are roughly equal, the job of the AfD closer is not to count votes, but to determine consensus. Per WP:CONSENSUS, "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." The primary argument of all of the Keep voters in this AfD is that the subject of the article passes WP:NSPORT or WP:NCYC, which is the subject-specific notability guideline for athletes. And, I believe that the subject of the article does indeed pass WP:NCYC. However, that is a fundamentally flawed argument for keeping the article.

The very first sentence at the top of WP:NSPORT is, "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia." (emphasis mine). NSPORT itself explicitly refers to the fact that it is not the ultimate bar to determine whether a subject is deserving of an article. It is simply a means of quickly estimating whether a subject is likely to meet that ultimate bar (GNG), without having to go through the process of finding sources to prove it. However, when an AFD is started on an article, those sources need to be produced in order to prevent the deletion of the article. While Magdalena Zamolska clearly passes NSPORT, no one has been able to even remotely demonstrate that she passes WP:GNG. Therefore, I'm forced to assume that she doesn't pass GNG, and thus, the article must be deleted. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 15:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalena Zamolska

[edit]
Magdalena Zamolska (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)

Seems to fail WP:GNG. While it passes WP:NSPORT, note that NSPORT clearly states that the subject has to meet GNG, meeting NSPORT is just indicative they are more likely to do so, so we should search for sources (WP:BEFORE). Well, I did, and I don't see anything except few stats; the best I see is one-sentence coverage like [1] confirming that she competed in few mid-level events and in one or two placed reasonably high (the source cited notes she won "Międzynarodowe Kryterium Uliczne", an event so obscure it doesn't even have an entry on pl wiki - on that note, the subject also doesn't have an article on pl wiki, another red flag). Not all sportspeople who get themselves on a stat-site or two are notable, and she fails GNG clear as day. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it clearly does. I see you've still not addressed your incredibly bad-faith nom in the first place. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be snowing here. 07:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Snow of invalid votes is irrelevant. This is not a vote. Vote keeps based on ignoring GNG dont' count for much. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. @Piotrus: I agree with you. Also, NSPORT is not supposed to be a handcuff. It says:

    the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept.

    I searched Google with

    Magdalena Zamolska cyclist -"she represented her nation at the"

     to remove mirrors, and I got pretty much the same info that is in the article right now. There were a lot of passing mentions, unremarkable coverage, and self-published sources. What's worse, the subject is a living person, so the V and RS standards are much stricter. Fails GNG. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr. Guye: First off, well said - I agree that WP:NSPORT is not something that binds an AFD discussion (a major reason why I've shared a reference from WP:SPORTSPERSON as above). However, while having quoted the segment of policy which when read in full, states -
1."...failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted..."
2."...the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept..."
I suppose those nullify each other out.
Also, since your concerns (which reflects in your vote) are more towards the verifiability and sourcing of the subject - I'm assuming that you're sold on the subject passing the notability (in theory - if not from within the current state of the article). Do please correct me if this is wrong but if not, then I believe if we are to consider the facts that, notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article or article content does not determine notability, I think this should suffice for keeping the subject alive as an article here, rather than having it deleted. Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 06:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. Guye's argument is all about lack of Notability: Notability guidelines only exist so we can write a full NPOV/BLP/V/NOR biography - an article of only several sentences "does not qualify for a separate page". Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Topcipher: I wasn't advocating deletion based on article content. I said the information I found didn't give info that wasn't already in the article. I did do research. I even displayed my search query above! But when I searched, I found no more content that was already there. This is important especially because of Hmlarson's !vote when they say

Article could use expansion not deletion per WP:ATD.

But you can't do that if there isn't any more information.--Mr. Guye (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr. Guye: I see, noted and my apologies in case my interpretation was not upto the mark. Given these insights (i.e. your comment), please advise if the following summarizes the issues in play -
1. Notability - pass
2. Verifiability - pass
3. Reliable sources - pass
4. Expansion - unlikely (per current scenario) - tip: by using/modifying search term as "Magda Zamolska", we're further able to see more references.
If the above is believed to be true (as I do not see you questioning anything but point 4), firstly, I'd like to point out that every snowflake is unique :) and secondly, here are some more sources that I was able to gather; some may be similar, but some could be of use too as they have content and not just stats (I wasn't to gather deeper insights as I'm not so proficient with the language) -
1. kobieta.wp.pl 2. portal.bikeworld.pl 3. dewielersite.net 4. sport.se.pl 5. domtel-sport.pl 6. wroclaw.wyborcza.pl
Undoubtedly, these are mere mentions and stats, non-English (above it all) but the point I'm trying to make is that it would still suffice to use them either for expansion or for having them as additonal claim of significance towards the alreaedy existing notability. Hope this helps. Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Topcipher: information The Polish Wikipedia corresponding article pl:Magdalena Zamolska and your suggestion pl:Magda Zamolska fail to exist. That would be strange for a notable athlete from the country that provides majority of its viewers. --Mr. Guye (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr. Guye: Oh, please don't worry about that - it has already been addressed by Lugnuts in their very first remark via WP:OTHERLANGS. Also, the alternate search term that I was referring to was for Google searches (not so much on Wikipedia).
On a personal note, I was once told that different Wiki would have different standards - which merit different criterions; all I can say is that if the article that has been created here and has been proved to meet said guidelines, we could only deem ourselves lucky to have such editors among us - instead over at the pl site :) TopCipher (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes WP:NCYC and that's enough. This does seem to be a WP:POINT-y nomination to drum up support for your village pump proposal. But the village pump is the right place to discuss this, not here. Smartyllama (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG and BLP and V and RS per Guye. Also, fails WP:ONEEVENT since all the N claim is one event, and not even a "psedobiography" can be written, here, let alone an WP:NPOV biography. In addition, fails all other criteria like WP:SPORTSPERSON, WP:NCYC because those merely suggest there could be a "likelyhood" of the proper substantial coverage of this woman's biography but no such GNG RS coverage exists (thus, the likleyhood or "presumption" has failed and is now nothing but unsupported WP:OR) and the WP:BURDEN is on the keep voters to demonstrate the substantial coverage of her biography does exist, especially where the event occurred several years ago, so such coverage should already exist. Also, delete per WP:NOTEVERYTHING including not promotion, not directory, and not statistics. Some of the person's statistics info might go to an appropriate list article, per ONEEVENT and LIST, or to a list-in-an-article on notable cycling events.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC) -- (There have been questions below, about what I meant in the first sentence, "Fails GNG and BLP and V and RS . . ..", I was referring to Mr. Guye's rationale, which is backed up by WP:WHYN, that an article of only a few sentences does not qualify for a separate page, and notability guidelines only exist so we can write a full biographical article. To further expand, the routine coverage produced by the research, here, does not meet the GNG requirement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]
"Fails GNG and BLP and V and RS" - wrong on all four counts there. Meets the notability criteria for cyclists, the BLP is verified with reliable sources. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. As Guye showed, for this biography, there is no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" that is both "directly" about her whole life and that is "detailed" about her whole life per GNG (and NPOV). Per WP:WHYN, notability guides exist only so we can write a whole article about the subject, here, a life - a biography, not "half a paragraph." So, here, we cannot keep.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear, at least on three counts why it fails BLP, V and RS? Are you suggesting it's a violation of the WP:BLP policy? Could you be clear how? I can see WP:V sources which look WP:RS to me. Could you explain why those sources currently used are not verifiable and not reliable? GNG, well that's another discussion but let's get the easy three sorted out. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Refer back to Guye's post which is where they were discussed more in depth, as that is what I was referring to, explicitly, so as not to repeat, but perhaps it will also help you to re-read WP:WHYN to get my points. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm cool with my understanding of these policies, and this article doesn't fail them. Thanks for the pointers though. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. Routine coverage of World Championships does not make this subject merit an article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the competitors in a world championship don't receive the necessary coverage to be considered notable, then they aren't notable. Until very recently, the media attention for women's cycling was in most countries extremely minimal (it has improved a lot, but is still way below the coverage the men receive). Competing in the world championships in many other sports isn't enough to be notable (e.g. inline skating and roller skating, or the Basque Pelota World Championships, or many many others), and there is no reason to make an exception for women's cycling. If she has received significant personal attention (not jus troutine coverage and sports database listings), she is notable. Until such coverage surfaces though, she should be considered to be not notable and her article deleted. Fram (talk) 09:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the arguments made by others, above. And let's try to stay calm, folks. Can I please modestly refer people to WP:BOSTONTEAPARTY and WP:PLEASEDON'TSHOUT. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. The article is sourced to procyclingstats.com and Cycling Archives (and there is an external link to ProCyclingStats, although that's not used as a ref). Does anybody have a handle or, or even a vibe about, how reliable these sources are? If they are not I would tend to lean toward deleting the article as not sufficiently sourced. If these are good sources I would tend to lean toward keeping the article, since it contains useful data such as a very large encyclopedia (which we are) would have, is not hurting anyone, and already exists. Herostratus (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Herostratus - these are both some of the foremost and most reliable sources for cycling articles (road and time trial), lugnuts can confirm XyZAn (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that? Take Procyclingstats.com' -- how many employees do they have? What is their fact-checking operation like? What's their self-correct process for errors? It says there that "All information and specifications shown on this website are based upon the latest available information provided by race organizations, teams and riders". Well heck, "provided by... riders", really? What's to stop a rider from reporting a better time than they actually had -- it would be in their interest to do so, I would think.
Procyclingstats.com is a commercial enterprise. An important goal for them is to make money, or at least stay in business. To the end they must have pressure to keep costs down, including fact-checking staff. On the other hand, they probably realize that a slipshod approach to fact-checking will lose them eyeballs in the long run. So these goals are in tension -- how do they handle that tension? Beyond that, they may well be people of competence and integrity who are doing this mainly or at least partly out of enthusiasm for cycling -- but I don't know that. Do you?
An official body would probably have a stronger motive to get their facts right, since their remit would more to advance cycling generally than to run a website which is itself profitable. For instance, Major League Baseball provides baseball statistics, free of charge and presumably well vetted, as doing so advances their larger goals. Cycling doesn't seem to have anything like that, and this makes me rather nervous. Herostratus (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are both the standard reliable sources for cyclists. They've been used by the project for as long as I can remember. If you want to question their reliablity then do so here. There's never been an issue (that I'm aware of) from using one or the other as a WP:RS. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is no "official" source for pro cycling - for instance, like MLB.Com or the Hall of Fame etc for professional baseball - we have to make do with the sources we've got. So far as I know Cycling Archives and procyclingstats are generally accepted as reliable sources by the cycling world. As an off-topic aside...anyone know how many employees & fact-checkers that MLB.Com/Baseball Hall of Fame/etc have? I'm not personally aware of any particular discussion on-Wiki as to how staffing-levels do or do not affect reliability of a source. Agree that if editors have doubts about the two sources mentioned above then a discussion should be open at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Shearonink (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another way to look at it is with a sample GA article, such as 2016 Paris–Roubaix. This uses ProCyclingStats to source many of the info within the article. I'm sure if anyone was concerned about PCS/CA, they could look through all the cycling FA/GA articles to see how often they're used. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is a genuine question, but at an AFD, it's clutching at straws to suddenly start questioning the reliability of sources. That's not what AFD is about. Nor is the number of staff employed by an organisation.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's all down to how much Gift Aid they pledge from the donations of dress-down Friday that will pass the RS grade. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I guess, per the above conversation. I don't have confidence that the article is sourced to sufficiently reliable sources. "They've been used by the project for as long as I can remember" and so forth tell tell us nothing useful. "we have to make do with the sources we've got" does not inspire confidence, and of course staffing levels affect reliablity -- that is why the New Yorker with its fact-checking department is a reliable source and one-man blog isn't. For all I know Procyclingstats.com etc. is a one-man website, or at any rate a tiny-staff website.
Procyclingstats.com for instance says ""All information... based upon... information provided by... riders" which, if taken at face value, does not indicate sufficient rigor. Baseball statistics are not based on the scorer asking "Hey Hank, how many hits did you get today". It has been vouchsafed over at the Pump that this class of articles in general is problematic precisely for the reason that the refs aren't reliable. We can't assume that some obscure commercial website is reliable, rather the burden is on persons wanting to use the website. Herostratus (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the small matter that it is not a "obscure commercial website". Again, WP:RSN is where you should raise your concerns about this. The site is used multiple times for GA and FA content on here. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are other sources available confirming competing in World, World Junior, and national championships, e.g. [2], [3], [4]. There may well be other coverage but it is likely to be in Polish. --Michig (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I understand feeling squeamish about possibly using a one-man blog as a source but having to "make do with the sources we've got" is entirely appropriate. If there is no Big Book of Cycling Stats or Guinness Book of Cycling Stats or a Best-Selling Author's Cycling History Tome or whatever, then, yes, as editors we cannot conjure up something that does not exist, so yes, we have to make do with what we've got. Since you've mentioned The New Yorker 's fabled fact-checking department above, how many does The Washington Post or ESPN or Sports Illustrated or The Times of London or whatever have? Not that I participate in huge numbers of AfD discussions but I've personally never seen "the-number-of-people-employed-as-factcheckers" cited in a discussion as a reason to disregard a source before. If, in your opinion, both Procyclingstats.com & Cyclingarchives.com are now considered to be not reliable because their editorial status is not as legendary as The New Yorker then the appropriate report should be made at the RS Noticeboard and perhaps those sources should be salted like The Daily Mail was. Shearonink (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I went and looked it up. The New Yorker had eight people in its fact-checking department prior to Tina Brown. At least, according to the Columbia Journalism Review they did. The magazine now employs sixteen fact-checkers but if they're "the gold standard" is WP supposed to discard every source that doesn't come up to that standard? I dunno... Shearonink (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the reliability of stat sources is a major issue here. The question is - are they enough to make the subject pass WP:GNG? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: Passes WP:NCYC, she competed at UCI World Championship in 2006 (time trial), and 2008 (road race). She's also Polish champion in two-women time trial (2009) and took the silver in ITT (2006, 2007), bronze in individual road race in 2004, and bronze in ITT (2005). The source is: Bogdan Tuszyński, Henryk Kurzyński Leksykon 1466 najlepszych zawodniczek I zawodników w kolarstwie polskim 1919-2015, ed. Warsaw 2016, p. 464. I'm going to write article in Polish wiki, anyway, as the podium of the national championship is enough there.--Pbk (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep This AfD is in bad faith from an editor trying to make a point about the long standing notability consensuses of WP:NCYCLING and WP:NSPORT. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Careful, Piotrus will be running off to ANI an saying you're making personal attacks against him with a comment like that. Infact I wonder if User:Fram considers that to be "disruptive" per this comment that fails to assume good faith? No rush, I know you've been very busy with this and this. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:25, 28 April 2017 (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/Magdalena_Zamolska&oldid=1138044220"