- 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-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Victor Romfors
- Victor Romfors ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:HOCKEY, no evidence of meeting the GNG. The article incorrectly states that the player has played in the Swedish Hockey League; he appeared with his team in only a single exhibition game, which does not count. Ravenswing 01:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Delete – Not notable and fails WP:NHOCKEY. United States Man ( talk) 01:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. The false claim that he played in the SHL is unimpressive to say the least. Reso lute 01:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY or GNG. - DJSasso ( talk) 13:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Not yet notable, has not played in SHL can be recreated if that happens. Based on the sheer number of these that we are nominating and voting on, does WP:DISRUPT ever come into play? ÞórrÓðinnTýr Eh? 17:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: My take on it -- shared by a number of the hockey project editors -- is that the editor who's responsible for almost all of these is openly defiant of consensus on appropriate notability criteria, when he isn't making false assertions outright about what the guidelines state. Views on his motivations vary, but he's already under a topic and page move ban regarding articles with diacritics, in which area similar antics went on. He's capable of (and has done) a lot of useful wikignome work, but I'd look favorably on a ban on new article creation.
And the sheer number you're seeing? Only a fraction. I'm a sixth through his new article list, so far, and that doesn't count his habit of creating implausible redirects, of which I've RfDed a bunch. Ravenswing 19:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- The sheer amount of editor time and resources he has wasted is quite frustrating. And all because he is too lazy to actually find and add sources before creating these pages. He simply goes down roster lists and creates these worthless one or two sentence sub-stubs then casts them off to the ether. An overwhelming number will never be expanded or touched in any significant fashion again. And god knows how many of his older creations are now out of date and claim the player is a member of a team they no longer play for (assuming the right team at the time was given in the first place). Reso lute 23:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: My take on it -- shared by a number of the hockey project editors -- is that the editor who's responsible for almost all of these is openly defiant of consensus on appropriate notability criteria, when he isn't making false assertions outright about what the guidelines state. Views on his motivations vary, but he's already under a topic and page move ban regarding articles with diacritics, in which area similar antics went on. He's capable of (and has done) a lot of useful wikignome work, but I'd look favorably on a ban on new article creation.
- 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.
- 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-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Victor Romfors
- Victor Romfors ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:HOCKEY, no evidence of meeting the GNG. The article incorrectly states that the player has played in the Swedish Hockey League; he appeared with his team in only a single exhibition game, which does not count. Ravenswing 01:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Delete – Not notable and fails WP:NHOCKEY. United States Man ( talk) 01:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. The false claim that he played in the SHL is unimpressive to say the least. Reso lute 01:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY or GNG. - DJSasso ( talk) 13:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Not yet notable, has not played in SHL can be recreated if that happens. Based on the sheer number of these that we are nominating and voting on, does WP:DISRUPT ever come into play? ÞórrÓðinnTýr Eh? 17:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: My take on it -- shared by a number of the hockey project editors -- is that the editor who's responsible for almost all of these is openly defiant of consensus on appropriate notability criteria, when he isn't making false assertions outright about what the guidelines state. Views on his motivations vary, but he's already under a topic and page move ban regarding articles with diacritics, in which area similar antics went on. He's capable of (and has done) a lot of useful wikignome work, but I'd look favorably on a ban on new article creation.
And the sheer number you're seeing? Only a fraction. I'm a sixth through his new article list, so far, and that doesn't count his habit of creating implausible redirects, of which I've RfDed a bunch. Ravenswing 19:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- The sheer amount of editor time and resources he has wasted is quite frustrating. And all because he is too lazy to actually find and add sources before creating these pages. He simply goes down roster lists and creates these worthless one or two sentence sub-stubs then casts them off to the ether. An overwhelming number will never be expanded or touched in any significant fashion again. And god knows how many of his older creations are now out of date and claim the player is a member of a team they no longer play for (assuming the right team at the time was given in the first place). Reso lute 23:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: My take on it -- shared by a number of the hockey project editors -- is that the editor who's responsible for almost all of these is openly defiant of consensus on appropriate notability criteria, when he isn't making false assertions outright about what the guidelines state. Views on his motivations vary, but he's already under a topic and page move ban regarding articles with diacritics, in which area similar antics went on. He's capable of (and has done) a lot of useful wikignome work, but I'd look favorably on a ban on new article creation.
- 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.