Talk:HC Litvínov

Player Mergers

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

One month after this request was started, there doesn't appear to be a consensus in favour of it. HeyMid (contribs) 21:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Many single sentence player stub articles have been created. It seems there's one for each member of the 2010/11 squad. Mr X (born January 01, 1900) is a Czech professional ice hockey player. He played with HC Litvínov in the Czech Extraliga during the 2010–11 Czech Extraliga season. See for example Robin Hanzl, Juraj Majdan, and Frantisek Gerhat. There are 16 such articles that were all created around the same time and by the same user. The only claim to notability is that they played for HC Litvínov in the 2010/11 season. That does meet one criteria of WP:NHOCKEY, which makes them "presumably" notable. I recommend that these player's pages by merged into this article, or maybe another article; say HC Litvínov 2010/11 squad. — Fly by Night (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Standalone articles can be created as and when the subjects achieve sufficient notability to warrant more than a one sentence stub. The simple addition of a Wiki-link would ensure inter-article coherency. As WP:MERGE says, one rationale for a merger is "If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time…". I can't see these articles being expanded within the next few years. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is a byproduct of Dolovis' obsession with creating large quantities of crap. He's been asked to take the time to build articles that are actually of value on numerous occasions, but that is obviously a futile request. Merging to the team article is not very effective as some of the players will have played for other teams in the past, and they will play for other teams in the future. So as time moves forward, such a merge would introduce a wide variety of inaccuracies. Of course, time will do that anyway as I very much doubt anyone will maintain any more than a tiny fraction of these creations. It's a no-win situation. I'd personally support deletion, but too many people hold project guidelines like NHOCKEY as gospel, so that's not a guaranteed solution either. In the end, we are left with a giant mess and no easy way to clean it up. Resolute 04:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, a merge is pointless as there is virtually no content to merge. One could just build a roster page and redirect everything. Over time as players move to other teams and leagues, and assuming anyone cares enough to look it over, simply take all of the redirects to RfD since there would be no obvious target. Resolute 04:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

So when does the point come that we can take affirmative action? WP:NHOCKEY does not say that these players are notable, it says that they are "presumably notable", which is subtly different (presumably: likely though not known for certain). It means that it is possible to argue that they are not notable. Can we put this to a larger group, something like an RfC? Something needs to be done about this stub-spam. I've pleaded with him to focus on quality and not quantity on more than one occasion. The first ocasion was met with a murmor and then a flurry of stub-spam, then the second time he just ignored me and carried on churning out more stub-spam. He also claims not to know what article creation tools are… — Fly by Night (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

An RfC might be best hosted at WT:HOCKEY since at this point, we are talking about hundreds of articles. WP:N might be a better spot though, as it would have higher visibility. Resolute 04:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: I would expect an editor to wait a reasonable amount of time before tagging newly created articles for merging. Please know that hockey players who have played in the Czech Extraliga meet the first criteria of WP:NHOCKEY and are therefore deemed presumed notable for inclusion as a Wikipedia article. The ice hockey project has delivered a clear consensus stating that playing just a single game in the Czech Extraliga is enough to satisfy the inclusion criteria. Merging should be avoided as stub-articles about notable ice hockey players can and will be expanded; and yes, I fully expect that all of the articles are likely to be expanded. These ice hockey players are all notable professional athlete's who are playing at an elite level in a premier league. Any editor who feels otherwise has the right to follow the deletion process and nominate that article for deletion. Fly by Night's mass-tagging for merge is premature. The proof will be in the pudding. Dolovis (talk) 12:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

  No, they are presumed notable, not "deemed" notable. Do you have multiple, non-trivial, independent sources on each of these players with which one can build a proper BLP article, Dolovis? Resolute 15:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

  The tagging was not premature. You have a well documented history or creating single sentence stubs that never get expanded. — Fly by Night (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

  Three minutes from the article's creation to tagging.[1] Yes, I call that premature. Dolovis (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

  That because I'd seen all of the articles you had created the night before, e.g. Michal Travnicek on the New Pages list. I had been monitoring your stub-spam and edit history for the best part of a day. It was only when you started a new flurry that I decided to act. Thanks for making that point though, I realise not that I forgot to tag some articles. Also, Michal Travnicek highlights how bad these articles are. Criterion 5 of WP:NHOCKEY is that a player was a first round draft pick for the NHL; this guy was an 8^th round pick! — Fly by Night (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Conditional Oppose: Those newly created player bio articles should be given a chance to expand. GoodDay (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

  But that's the very issue: will they ever be expanded? The merger guidelines say that "If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic." Looking back at Dolovis's other creations, say for example Philip Kemi or Ziga Pance, we see that other than some BLPPROD's and general housekeeping (renaming, adding categories, page moves) the articles haven't been touched for more than six weeks. The same is true for all of his other stubs. None of them have been expended. As such it is unlikely that any of his stubs will be expanded within a reasonable amount of time; unless he does it himself which he refuses to do. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

What's the time limit? GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The phrase "a reasonable amount of time" is up to interpretation. However, I would say that after six weeks without a single word of expansion we have passed a reasonable amount of time. I know that the articles in question haven't been up for six weeks but Dolovis's edit history sets a precedent and gives a very strong indication that they are "unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time". After all, why won't these 16 articles follow the same path as the other dozens and dozens of untouched and forgotten one line stubs that he has made? You might think that he will expand them himself, but he has ignored multiple pleas to expand his articles. — Fly by Night (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm partial to the existance of these stubs as they've no diacritics/accent marks in their titles. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see how that's relevant. — Fly by Night (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

If these stubs had dios in their titles, I'd likely support a merge. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand what diacritics are; I just don't understand what the presence or absence of them has to do with the content of the article itself. — Fly by Night (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Their presence or absence, is what's determining my stance here. If those stubs had dios in their titles, I'd agree to merge them with HC Litvinov. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

If after a determined period of time, these stubs haven't been expanded substantially? then merging is required. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• The most disturbing part of these creations is that hundreds of living people are caught in what seems to be part of the user's POINTy campaign regarding diacritical marks. WP:BLP requires us to edit conservatively and get the articles right. This flood of copy-paste BLPs which fail to summarize the subjects' lives and careers in any way or even get the names right must surely be against the spirit, if not the letter, of the policy. Maybe this should be discussed on WP:BLPN or WP:ANI to get more opinions. Prolog (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

  The creation of articles for Czech Extraliga players has nothing to do with the dios discussion, and GoodDay's introduction of that red-herring into the discussion is regretful. The players' articles have been created because they are notable and worthy of a Wikipedia article. End of story. Dolovis (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

  The are "presumably" notably, i.e. likely but not certain. There is a growing group of observers that do not believe they are worthy of their own article, and that is not to mention WP:MERGE. So it's far from "end of story". It's just the beginning. All of these articles fail all but one point of WP:NHOCKEY, and fail spectacular; like Michal Travnicek who was an 8^th round NHL draft pick, when criterion 5 asks for first round NHL draft picks. span style="white-space:nowrap;">— Fly by Night (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

  If that is how you feel, then follow deletion policy and bring it to AfD. Dolovis (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

  I don't believe that the information in the articles should be deleted. I think that it should be condensed into something more substantial and worthwhile. As I suggested originally, a HC Litvínov 2010/11 Squad section or article would be a great idea. The fact is that many of these players will not go on to greater things. Some will become injured, some will just fade away. If and when some of the others do rise to greater hights then we can start greeting individual articles. We could set up some redirects from the player's names to the squad article. That would be much better for the reader too. S/he'll be able to see the information they were looking for, as well as seeing other team mates and getting a bigger picture. The same information is available, the only thing is that your "articles created" stat won't increase as quickly. It depends what's more important to you. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose the demand for merge. It seems that many of those guys have played a good amount of professional ice hockey games in the Czech Extraliga (some also in other leagues), some also in national teams, so there is a good chance to expand those articles. Not all of those guys have also played their entire professional career in HC Litvínov. So, I don't really get this merging thing. My own written English skills are quite bad (as English isn't my native language), but as an example I tried to expand few of those articles with few sentences, Jakub Cerny, Peter Jansky and David Pojkar. Are those articles now OK stubs? If there are language errors (it is very probable that there are), you are free to correct. Out of those other guys Richard Jares, for example, seems to have played over 300 regular season games in the Czech Extraliga, and in addition to HC Litvínov, he has played for three other Extraliga teams [2]. Sounds clearly notable to me, and merging that article to this particular article (or to an article about some certain season of this particular team) would also be quite odd as he has played for HC Litvínov only one season to date and for those other Extraliga teams a total of eight seasons. As an other example, Ivan Svarny on the other hand has played almost 200 regular season games in the Czech Extraliga and 100 regular season games in the Slovak Extraliga, and he has also played in the Ice Hockey World Championships representing Team Slovakia [3]. Clearly notable in my opinion, and there is an obvious chance to expand that article. ,,n (talk) 01:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• And as an addition, I also expanded a bit the article about Michal Travnicek (whose actual name seems to be Michal Trávníček; I don't know, what is the naming policy here regarding Czech names). That player has played over 500 professional games in the Czech Extraliga + over 100 professional games in the AHL, so it should be quite obvious that he is worth an independent article. ,,n (talk) 04:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for making the expansion. I will remove the merge template from that article. There were many interesting facts about that player that Dolovis had not attempted to add. However, just because one or two are of sufficient value, does not mean that the other few hundred are. Dolovis has created an article for almost every player that played in the Czech Extraliga. — Fly by Night (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm familiar with somewhat 'robotic' creations of User:Dolovis, I added references to many of his (slightly out-of-date) articles. I think there's a possibility to expand almost all of them. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Shouldn't this merge request be closed? It's been over two weeks since it was opened and more than 10 days since anyone commented on this. In addition, there doesn't appear to be a lot of support for the merge. Patken4 (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.