Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Toby Meltzer
Moving conversation not directly relevant to the AfD process here
- Comment - It is entirely uncalled for that AED commits the offense of personal attack by characterizing my original writing additions to the article on the notable surgeon Toby Meltzer, MD, as "smacks of copy and paste". It appears to me that the comments by user AED may be some of the systematic bias systematic bias mentioned by Agne. Evidence of such bias and denigration is almost always excellent reason to maintain an article. Dr. Meltzer's work is certainly notable to the thousands of patients from all over the world that he has helped with his innovative surgical techniques. As user Agne also notes, wikipedia articles also exist for Dr. Meltzer's colleagues, including the late Stanley Biber, MD of Trinidad, Colorado, who during his time, made that small town the "vaginoplasty capital of the world". Also as noted, there are citations for Toby Meltzer in the associated talk page and links on the main page. If every wikipedia article were held to the kind of standard's the "delete" voters claim for this article, half of wikipedia would probably disappear tomorrow. Toby Meltzer's highly acclaimed innovative work is the sort that helps give wikipedia esteem.Janniejdoe 16:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think AED's comments were systematic bias in the way that is being implied. His comments were made prior to the re-write and he was stating a valid concern. My comments regarding systematic bias was with the overall lack of representation for articles in this area due to editors unfamilarity with the subject matter, and not anything malicious. While I believe that Dr. Meltzer is quite notable (I'm not even part of the trans community and I was well aware of his work), I do think his article would benefit immensely with a source citation for the "pioneering techniques". Agne 23:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. Bias works both ways and people within the trans community can tend to over-emphasise the notability of certain persons; "Everyone knows who Toby Meltzer is!". Ah, no they don't. Hence my initial impetus for starting the article. BTW - I appreciate the immense work both of you have done to-date on improving on my meagre contribution - Alison✍ 23:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think AED's comments were systematic bias in the way that is being implied. His comments were made prior to the re-write and he was stating a valid concern. My comments regarding systematic bias was with the overall lack of representation for articles in this area due to editors unfamilarity with the subject matter, and not anything malicious. While I believe that Dr. Meltzer is quite notable (I'm not even part of the trans community and I was well aware of his work), I do think his article would benefit immensely with a source citation for the "pioneering techniques". Agne 23:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. You are welcome. However, it is an absurd wikipedia circumstance when every little womb turd like Paris Hilton rates a common denominator wiki entry, while somebody who works hard every day to make a contribution, like Toby Meltzer, MD, has to have his Wiki entry defended against deletion. Those are absurd circumstances. The example demonstrates that there needs to be an entirely different procedure for AfD nominiation. For example, the procedure should require a period of request for editing and update berfore any AfD can be started. That way, the votes can be based on an article that better represents the subject of it. In any event, the Wiki ought to have a BIAS against any deletion in my opinion. A basis for deletion ought to be at least as heavily documented as the work required to prevent deletion shown in this instance. I will also continue to suspect that this article may have been nominated on the basis of ignorance of, and bias against, the subject matter, , rather than a legimate intent to improve Wikipedia content. At least the call to emergency will probably have saved this article. Some of folks may want to alert people like Andrea James jokestress and other relevant people who may want to include their votes on the issue of this article. Janniejdoe 18:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Jannie, please WP:AGF on both the nom and the process. While not perfect, AfD does serve an important function and being nominated for deletion (and eventually kept) is not really a knock on the initial articles. Many articles come out of the AfD process, better then they were before. Yes, some worthwhile topics may get selected due to a nominators lack of familarity with the subject but that is why AfD is a discussion rather then a vote. If you can shed light on the notability of the subject you will find that the vast majority of AfD editors will be reasonable and keep the article, even if they were initially unfamilar with it. I do believe this is what will happen with the Toby Meltzer article. As for the call of emergency, you need to be careful about the appearence of vote stacking, which would be improper. I will say that I did drop an FYI note on Jokestress page but my intention was to get her help in improving the article to make his notability sufficiently clear. Again, remember that AfD is not a vote and the overwhelming intention of the process if for the end result to be a better encyclopedia--hopefully with a better article included. Agne 01:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Agne, it is difficult to assume good faith wp:agf when a user falsely accuses me of "copy and paste", without citation or reference. Such personal attacks do not presuppose good faith of any sort. In fact, such a false accusation amounts to having accused me of plagiarism. You also need to be careful about making uncalled for, innuedos like "vote stacking" too. You innuedo does not meet a criteria of assuming good faith either. From my perspective, many aspects of the WP:AFD process are inadequate and in need of remedial work. Although your additions to the Meltzer article have been welcome, your commentary in this regard is not. Mention of Andrea James who is a "notable" individual whose well cited expertise on the subject matter of Toby Meltzer, MD are relevant in this instance. She cannot vote on this issue, if she is not aware of the matter. You need to tread much more carefully before making ignorant accusations like the ones you have. You should have checked citations for Andrea James before doing so. Anyone editing and article on Toby Meltzer, MD ought to be familiar with her name as well. Google shows no less than 97,000 hits for "Andrea James" (jokestress)| google - andrea james. Furthermore, the fact that some articles come out of the WP:AFD process better does not vindicate the inadequacy of the AfD process. The prerequisite criteria for creating an AfD ought to be at least as high as the process for a delection itself in my opinion. For example, The software ought to require multiple nominations before the process can begin. At least that way a second, or third, nomination would be required before the process could begin. That way an article would more likely be edited and improved before the process and before voting could begin. Given time I would probably have many other suggestions. My perspectives and my assessment of this individual example are each valid. Janniejdoe 18:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Jannie, let's move this discussion to our Talk pages and I would recommend bringing up your critiques of the AfD process to the AfD talk page. Agne 02:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Per Agne's suggestion, I replied on the appropriate Talk page but it was blanked. -AED 04:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Janniejdoe refuses to discuss this matter on their talk page and has also erased my comments. It's not appropriate that this continue here so may I suggest that commentary be sub-paged at this point so we can discuss/tally votes? - Alison✍ 05:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Agne, it is difficult to assume good faith wp:agf when a user falsely accuses me of "copy and paste", without citation or reference. Such personal attacks do not presuppose good faith of any sort. In fact, such a false accusation amounts to having accused me of plagiarism. You also need to be careful about making uncalled for, innuedos like "vote stacking" too. You innuedo does not meet a criteria of assuming good faith either. From my perspective, many aspects of the WP:AFD process are inadequate and in need of remedial work. Although your additions to the Meltzer article have been welcome, your commentary in this regard is not. Mention of Andrea James who is a "notable" individual whose well cited expertise on the subject matter of Toby Meltzer, MD are relevant in this instance. She cannot vote on this issue, if she is not aware of the matter. You need to tread much more carefully before making ignorant accusations like the ones you have. You should have checked citations for Andrea James before doing so. Anyone editing and article on Toby Meltzer, MD ought to be familiar with her name as well. Google shows no less than 97,000 hits for "Andrea James" (jokestress)| google - andrea james. Furthermore, the fact that some articles come out of the WP:AFD process better does not vindicate the inadequacy of the AfD process. The prerequisite criteria for creating an AfD ought to be at least as high as the process for a delection itself in my opinion. For example, The software ought to require multiple nominations before the process can begin. At least that way a second, or third, nomination would be required before the process could begin. That way an article would more likely be edited and improved before the process and before voting could begin. Given time I would probably have many other suggestions. My perspectives and my assessment of this individual example are each valid. Janniejdoe 18:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Jannie, please WP:AGF on both the nom and the process. While not perfect, AfD does serve an important function and being nominated for deletion (and eventually kept) is not really a knock on the initial articles. Many articles come out of the AfD process, better then they were before. Yes, some worthwhile topics may get selected due to a nominators lack of familarity with the subject but that is why AfD is a discussion rather then a vote. If you can shed light on the notability of the subject you will find that the vast majority of AfD editors will be reasonable and keep the article, even if they were initially unfamilar with it. I do believe this is what will happen with the Toby Meltzer article. As for the call of emergency, you need to be careful about the appearence of vote stacking, which would be improper. I will say that I did drop an FYI note on Jokestress page but my intention was to get her help in improving the article to make his notability sufficiently clear. Again, remember that AfD is not a vote and the overwhelming intention of the process if for the end result to be a better encyclopedia--hopefully with a better article included. Agne 01:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)