User:Balloonman/CSD Survey/1.5
| Quicklinks |
|---|
| Other Excellent articles on CSD |
Original Article
[edit]XXX is a young man that plays Bantam AAA hockey for the San Jose jr. Sharks. He is assistant captain and is tied for second in goal scorin on the team. XXX has been offered many chances to go to schools in Canada and play for that team. Word is, XXX will play Midget 16AAA for the Sharks then go play in the USHL. He will most likely be a top round draft pick. Most say XXX has a chance to go play in the NHL. Scouts say he will probably be a top round draft pick along with his teamate and current captain, YYY. YYY is the one that is tied with XXX in goals and they both trail ZZZ.
Nomination Criteria
[edit]A7 An article about a real person, an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. A7 applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people and organizations themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software and so on. A7 does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.
Deletion Options
[edit]| rationale | Count | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Agree with ratioinale to speedy delete. | 40 | 44.9 |
| Disagree with rationale to speedy delete, but deletable by other criteria. | 5 | 5.6 |
| Disagree with rationale to speedy delete, but this is a case where IAR applies. | 2 | 2.2 |
| Disagree with speedy deletion article makes claim to notability in as a top draft prospect. | 42 | 47.2 |
Survey Comments
[edit]| Common rationale | Count |
|---|---|
| AFD | 4 |
| PROD | 3 |
- I would google him, to check if the top draft pick etc. can be considered a credible assertion of importance. A7 assuming that I don't find anything.
- WP:CRYSTAL
- agree with rationale, assuming there is no better version in page history
- I think this would crash at AfD, but it's a reasonable assertion of significance. AfD and expect a SNOW.
- Its worth a look for sources; if none can be found I'd clean a bit and open an AfD/ping relevant WikiProjects to see if the article is rescuable
- People are touchy about notability of sports players; so I'd be loath to A7 it. I would prod or AfD it.
- It'll get snowed, go ahead and delete
- I woudn't have patrolled this - Sharks are a pro team, but I don't know enough about hockey to know if draft picks are notable
- reasonably asserts notability, should be PRODded or AfD'd
- "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" applies, for the most part. The "Scouts say…" part hints a little of potential notability, but it's too dubious without a source.
- Assuming that "playing Bantam AAA hockey" isn't an assertion of notability, this is an A7
- This is likely a WP:SNOW at AFD though
- Possibly notable. Prod if no significant sources on Google.
- I'm not clear on this one, as I don't really follow hockey, and would leave this one for another admin. If this is a 'youth' player (say, U-16 or under), I wouldn't argue with the deletion. But I don't know enough about hockey to make the call.
- "Probably" is not an assertion of notability.
- Would tag for notability
- All NHL assertiosn and the like are speculation by the plain text of the article; no assertion of importance is thus made, anyway, in real (virtual) life this is probably a G12 from via Myspace
Balloonman's analysis
[edit]Of all the CSD criteria, A7 is my least favorite. A7 seems to be the one that tends to bite newbies the most. People will start an article, such as this one, and save it only to have it speedily deleted. Personally, I wish A7 were only applied to "clear vanity" articles. As is, speedily deleting this article is already a controversial decision. Almost half of the people who reviewed this article believe there is already enough to preserve the article. CSD should only be exercised in cases that would be uncontroversial.
So why would this be inappropriate:
Per policy, even though this article may not meet our notability guideline, it does not have to in order to avoid speedy deletion. The policy explicitly states that the criteria is a lower standard than notability and only has to make a credible claim of significance or importance.
Some people would argue that this article would be deleted at AFD, thus IAR would apply. But appealing to IAR in this case, is a misapplication of IAR. IAR is not a blank slate to rewrite policies and guidelines, nor is it permission to ignore policy that is explicitly written. The policy explicitly states that the criteria is a lower standard than notability and only has to make a credible claim of significance or importance.
The CSD criteria is strict to ensure that controversial deletions are avoided. This is necessary to protect the project and to give authors every chance to salvage articles. The odds are that this article will be deleted at AFD, heck it might even be closed early due to a snowball. BUT by sending it to AFD or PRODDING it, you do a few things:
1) You give the author a chance to salvage the article. 2) You give the author the sense that due process was served. If the article is speedily deleted, the author may feel bitten.