Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Tour de France King of the Mountains

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. Black Kite (talk) 09:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Tour de France King of the Mountains[edit]

2013 Tour de France King of the Mountains (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)

This doesn't belong in a general encyclopedia. It's great stuff for a website devoted to bicycling, but it's pretty crufty for our purposes. There's little encyclopedic import to an exhaustive accounting of the placings on each hill climb. We do have a place for the description of the race as a whole while ongoing, which is where efforts such as these should be expended. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 09:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I believe this page is not completely redundant. The mountains classification for each tour is unique and thus deserves a page devoted to it. The placings on each hill climb offer the chance to chart a rider's progress through the competition and analyse how the classification was won or lost. Due to the nature of the lists of placings on climbs being long and many, I don't think they would fit well on the 2013 Tour de France, Stage 1 to Stage 11 page, and as previously stated, deserve their own page. I created the page because I was searching for this information displayed on one page, clearly and concisely, and I believe there are others like me.
Some reasons why this page warrants a place on Wikipedia:
  • On Wikipedia:Five pillars it states that Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia's page on almanacs says Modern almanacs include a comprehensive presentation of statistical and descriptive data covering the entire world.
  • I see no reason on the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not page to suggest it should not be on Wikipedia.
  • This is the kind of page I (as a Wikipedia reader) expect to find on Wikipedia. Smitchlovesfunk (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not suggest that the page was redundant to anything, merely that it is well outside the scope of a general encyclopedia. This is the kind of page I would expect to find on Cycling News or CQ Ranking or some other website devoted to bicycling. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 11:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • To Green-eyed girl, I had not heard the word crufty before. Upon looking up the word I noted it can be jargon for anything redundant. Anyway, I understand your meaning now. But I want to state again that Wikipedia is not just a "general encyclopedia" but can be a specialised encyclopedia too. I do understand that this particular topic is perhaps a little too specialised. Smitchlovesfunk (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Twas a a reference to Wikipedia:Fancruft, which is really the worst scenario on AFD because it involves well-meaning editors who are obviously passionate about a topic or topics. Thank you for handling this process gracefully, by the way. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 13:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean Mountains classification in the Tour de France? --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 11:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That list already exists at King of the Mountains. And I'm not sure I understand the recommendation to rename the page and rewrite it as something else, for which the history of the present page is irrelevant – that seems to be a deletion and a creation. Dricherby (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I also don't understand. Smitchlovesfunk (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well in that case delete. Wikipedia is WP:NOTTHESPORTSSECTIONOFTHENEWSPAPER. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Weak delete Keep The mountains classification for each tour is indeed unique, but that does not mean that it deserves a page... There are many unique things in the world that don't deserve a page. Taking your points one by one:
  • Even specialized Tour books do not give this information. I have been looking for the complete mountain classification rankings for the years 1933 to 1949 for some years now, and no book provides them, and I am doing a difficult process of recalculating them from descriptions in newspapers. This a counter-argument for your first reason.
  • Your second reason: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", the "Excessive listings of statistics" section. For me, the article in this discussion is a clear example of that section.
  • And thirdly: my expectation is different from yours (I am not saying it is better): I would not expect this kind of page on Wikipedia, but I would hope for an external link to this information. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 11:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I'd like to second this last point in particular. No one is saying this is bad information or a bad article (well, at least I'm not). It just doesn't fit with Wikipedia. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 12:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To EdgeNavidad, fair point that not everything unique deserves its own page.
  • I get the point it is perhaps overly specialised information, but your interest in it suggests there are people who want easy access to this information.
  • We might have to agree to disagree on this point. I don't think it falls under the category "Excessive listings of statistics" because that section states: "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles" - I don't think these lists reduce the readability of the article because these list ARE the article. In addition, the article "contains sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader".
  • I accept that what I expect to find on Wikipedia is different from what others expect to find. Smitchlovesfunk (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If this page is not deleted, its title should be changed to something like Mountains classification in the 2013 Tour de France. "King of the Mountains" is not the name of the classification, but of the winner. And I don't understand why the winner of the combativity award is mentioned after every stage, I don't think it belongs here. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 11:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The only way this list can be sourced is through coverage of the results in newspapers etc. and this kind of routine coverage does not establish notability. There's no precedent for giving this level of detail in previous Tours and similar coverage is not being given to the other sub-classifications in this year's Tour. We do not, in general, give this level of detail for other sports on Wikipedia. Dricherby (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC) !vote struck; see replacement below. Dricherby (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Dricherby, just because it has never been done before is no reason not to start. However I take your point that it is perhaps routine coverage, nonetheless I believe it notable. I had also started preparing a page for the points classification for this tour too. I guess that will receive a similar reaction will it not? Smitchlovesfunk (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't recommend creating that page before this AfD finishes. Dricherby (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And when might that be? I don't particularly want to give this up, and now I have one person who agrees with me in Nickst. Smitchlovesfunk (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfDs last a week, but can be extended by a week at a time until consensus is reached, if necessary. Note also that AfDs are not votes and "keeps" accompanied by reasoning that doesn't address the issues carry little weight. Please see WP:AFDEQ and the subsequent sections of that page for more information on the process. Dricherby (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Unless more people are happy to keep the page I am happy to put the lists onto a page somewhere on Wikidata[2] and put a link to it on the 2013 Tour de France page. Smitchlovesfunk (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm happy with that suggestion. I agree that never having one of these lists before isn't a concrete reason but it does give guidance, which is why I mentioned it. I'm not sure which of my comments you don't quite understand. These discussions are much easier to follow if you make several replies within the thread, rather than trying to collect everything together at the bottom. Dricherby (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having said that I am not sure Wikidata is what I thought it was and I don't know how this would fit there. Smitchlovesfunk (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request. Having given this some more thought I would like to request the page to be kept and not deleted. Let me collect the reasons that have been cited for deletion and offer my thoughts:

  • Green-eyed girl: "This doesn't belong in a general encyclopedia" - as I stated before Wikipedia:Five pillars states Wikipedia has features of a specialised almanac of which I think this information is worthy of.
  • Clarityfiend: "WP:NOTTHESPORTSSECTIONOFTHENEWSPAPER" - I don't think this is merely news reporting. This article is about 2013 Tour de France Mountains classifcation which is something people in the future may want to look back on and easily see how the event unfolded—it just happens it is being created while the event is ongoing. The article also contains details of the workings of the classifiction and states how this year deffers from other years. I believe it is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" as stated in WP:EVENT.
    • Isn't "it is being created while the event is ongoing" pretty much one definition of news? And just how does it differ from other years? It looks the same as in prior years to me. Different climbs, but no shark tanks to jump over. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the fact that it is currently news is all you are worried about I will happily wait until the event has finished and then add all the information. I get the feeling that EdgeNavidad agrees this is not just a timely news story, but that this article has enduring notability because the user stated "I wish that this kind of information would be in all relevant books". This is something tour enthusiasts may want to refer back to in many years to come. With regards to differing from other years, I just mean EVERY year is different - different cyclists, different routes, different results etc. Just because previous years have not been covered in this much detail does not mean this year and future years should not be covered. Smitchlovesfunk (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • EdgeNavidad: "Excessive listings of statistics" - as stated before, "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles" - I don't think these lists reduce the readability of the article because these list ARE the article. In addition, the article "contains sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader"
  • Dercherby: "WP:INDISCRIMINATE" - This article could not be described as an indiscriminate collection of information, rather it is discriminant due to the fact it has been assembled with thought. According to WP:DISCRIMINATE, a discriminate collection of information would not violate the policy as stated in WP:IINFO
  • Dercherby: "similar coverage is not being given to the other sub-classifications in this year's Tour" - I would like to make a page for the 2013 Tour de France Points classification

I think if the article is kept then it should be given the name 2013 Tour de France Mountains classification. Even though I think 2013 Tour de France Climber classifictions would be more in following with notation on letour.com[[3]] the use of the first name is more in keeping with notation used on Wikipedia, e.g. Mountains classification in the Tour de France. Alternative. If I haven't managed to convince you then what about a List of climbs in the 2013 Tour de France article containing just the results of each climb? The details from the article will then be moved to a section in the 2013 Tour de France page. Smitchlovesfunk (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable event in the notable cycling race. Many reliable sources. Easy passes WP:GNG. NickSt (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support. Smitchlovesfunk (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passing WP:GNG requires substantial coverage, whereas WP:ROUTINE says that "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." Nobody is disputing that the 2013 Tour de France and the climbing classification in general are notable. The question that must be addressed is whether the results of every climb in the 2013 Tour de France have sufficient independent notability to warrant an article on that specific subject. Dricherby (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And WP:MERCY isn't a reason to keep. Dricherby (talk) 21:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps, but the alternative is that those voting for deletion haven't got a clue about bike racing and ought to really, in the nicest possible way, just go away. Not every cyclist or team in the tour is out to win the yellow jersey. Some are going for green (with a sprint finisher), some are going for the polka dots. Some just hope for a few stage wins. This is pretty important, and as long as it is completed, I can see no reason why it would be deleted excepting profound inanity that is regularly displayed by groups of Wikipedia users. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think that this kind of response helps your credibility. Nobody in favor of deletion has given any reason to think that they don't understand bike racing. Nobody wants this article deleted because they don't like it. If you want to help this article, stop attacking strawmen, read the discussion, and read why some people think this article should be deleted. Don't guess for their reasons.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 14:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • It does help YOUR credibility if your nomination makes reference to a valid deletion argument, and you don't pathetically try to respond to every point made by everyone who sensibly speaks against you. Please try to provide a valid reason for deletion, WP:IDON'TLIKEIT doesn't count. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please read more carefully. It is not my nomination, I didn't respond to every point made by everyone, and I provided several reasons for deletion. I have never said "I don't like it, so delete it". I even explicitly said that "I like this", see below. If you want to know the reasons for deletion, don't guess. Read. The outcome of this discussion is not fixed yet, if you give convincing reasons that the article should be kept, it will be kept. But sofar, all you did was saying that the article should be kept, because everybody who says "I don't like it" is wrong, even though nobody said "I don't like it". That does not help the discussion. Why do you think the article belongs on Wikipedia? Why do you think the previously given reasons for deletion are wrong? --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 13:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I like this, but I still support deletion. I wish that this kind of information would be in all relevant books, but it is not; the most you'll find is a list of climbs, the first to that top and the final classification. Not all information that is given in this article. And I don't see anybody in this conversation saying "I don't like it"...--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 06:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You keep mentioning the fact that this info is not found in relevant books on the subject. But to me that is more of a reason to include it here! Wikipedia has the privilege of not being limited in space the way a physical book is; this should allow it to be more specialized and contain information that is not included in books. Smitchlovesfunk (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usually, people use an encyclopaedia for general reference and specialist publications for detailed coverage. It would be unusual for an encyclopaedia to carry more detailed coverage than the specialist publications. Of course, that doesn't mean it can't happen but it does suggest (to me, at least) that this is beyond the encyclopaedia's remit. Dricherby (talk) 12:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hang on, a second. Smitchlovesfunk is suggesting that the article should be kept because this information is not available anywhere else; others have also commented on the general unavailability of this kind of data. But, if that's true, then the article is unverifiable (I note that it currently does not cite any sources for the actual results) and therefore has no place on Wikipedia. Alternatively, if there are sources available for this material, then the rationale for keeping it disappears. For the time being, the information is presumably on the Tour website but they seem only to have last year's race archived and not previous years'. Maybe they're on the Wayback Machine but, again, if they are, then this page is unnecessary. Dricherby (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is most certainly verifiable; you are right, the information is on the Tour website. However, there is no single page on the Tour website that contains all the information that this article does. Therefore this article provides a useful service of collecting all the information and presenting it on one easy to read page. You can not use that as a reason to say that this page is unnecessary because that would make an awful lot of Wikipedia unnecessary. Smitchlovesfunk (talk) 13:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it won't be on the Tour website after 2014, since they only have a one-year archive. Where is verifiability then? Dricherby (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we just cross that bridge when we come to it? It is still very much 2013! Smitchlovesfunk (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that verifiability is no issue here; there is no RS that puts all this information together in one book/website. But for each stage separately, the information is presented in multiple sources (not only the official tour-website, but also secondary sources). It could all be sourced with about 20 different links. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 13:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added references (from sources normally considered RS) for the first stage. On those websites, all articles since 1995 (when they started online) are still found, so verifiability is fine.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 13:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: In my opinion the notability of (and the honor to win) the 2013 mountains classification within the Tour de France, is much larger than many other races that have a wikipedia page, for instance 2013 Jelajah Malaysia. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If the results can be found in (former) newspapers, it seems to me that it is notable. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I doubt that, per WP:ROUTINE. What would make it notable is for example an article at the end of the Tour that lists all the climbs and the points awarded, as a discussion on how the mountains classification winner won their points. (More in the Alps? More in the Pyrenées? More in high-category climbs or in low-category climbs?) Or an article before the Tour starts, that lists the planned climbs, perhaps criticizes some of the organisers' choices, and gives favourites for the mountains classification. That kind of coverage would make it 100% notable for me. At the moment I am not convinced that it is notable (but also not convinced that it is not notable). --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 10:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 02:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Tour de France is acknowledged to be the premier cycle road race. It has characteristics that differ from other major sporting events (but that is true of them all). Its complexity means that there are discrete competitions within it in which different participants have a chance of chance of success. Aside from the General Classification (Yellow Jersey) competition, the King of the Mountains is one of the most important. The scoring system means that how it was won, as well as who they were competing against, matters.
As for the question of whether Wikipedia is the right place for this, the reality is that WP does sport more thoroughly than other topics. I am not comfortable with that. I do not agree with a policy that accords automatic notability to professional sportspeople and denies it to the chief executive of major corporations, or the skimpy coverage (if you will excuse the pun) of women's clothing, not a topic I understand. But the answer is usually to improve WP in those areas. The 2013 Wimbledon Championships Mixed Doubles competition has an article of its own because that is the best way of covering the topic rather than mixing it up in another article or just recording the winners. Those not interested will not read it, but that is not a ground for deletion. The same applies here. --AJHingston (talk) 10:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't accord automatic notability to professional sportspeople or, in fact, to anyone. Professional sportspeople have a presumption of notability, meaning that it is assumed that sufficient sources will exist; the actual notability still depends on there being sources. Since the media writes a huge amount about professional sport, those sources usually do, in fact, exist. In contrast, there's not much coverage of corporate executives except for the very largest companies and much of the coverage that does exist is heavily promotional in tone so not a useful source. So, yes, Wikipedia is biased towards sport rather than business but this is a reflection of the world at large. Dricherby (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The principles under which Wikipedia operates were not handed down on tablets of stone (any more than the constitutions of states or the rules under which sport is played), they have evolved to shape Wikipedia into what the community chooses it to be. Notability is measured in ways that tends to bias it toward certain media coverage, but these are only ways of comparing like with like (eg whether television newsreaders fall above or below the bar), and they are agreed not to be relevant to much of WP, for example scientific topics. Remember, WP is not a directory of things found on the internet or the popular press. Where existing notability criteria are applied, they do not always work well for 'the world at large' and it can certainly be argued that commercial organisations and women's fashions are examples of that. Because sports pages are accepted for notability purposes, in practice professional sportspeople automatically get in if they meet sports appropriate criteria. Coverage of clothes in the media does not count in the same way, any more than the number of employees or the turnover of a commercial organisation both of which can be said to be relevant to the real world. Of course, the Tour de France King of the Mountains competition (however described) gets enormous media coverage, so by that measure notability cannot be challenged. --AJHingston (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say you've done well. Two of those links (inrng and velovoices) provide the kind of coverage that I think makes the article notable. I did not expect that such articles would exist, but you've proven me wrong, and I changed my !vote to keep. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 19:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. The article on roadcyclinguk.com is a preview of this year's KotM competition, focusing on riders the site thinks are likely to win; it says nothing about the individual climbs and I don't see how it establishes notability of the lists of results presented in the article. inrng.com is not a reliable source so does not establish notability: it's the blog that's unconnected with the author's day job [4] (also, he says he crashes pieces out in a few minutes, which "probably explains the typos, links that don’t work or factual bungles"). sbbcolumns.co.uk is a blog aggregator so doesn't establish notability (and, again, only discusses riders felt likely to become KotM, and then only briefly). The Guardian article is irrelevant because it says nothing at all about this year's KotM. Finally, velovoices.com describes itself as a fan blog so is not a reliable source. Dricherby (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC) See my !vote below for comment on struck text. Dricherby (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement at all that sources, including those used for notability, should be in English. Those following the TV coverage in the UK will be of no doubt as to the notability of this competition, but most of the coverage will be in other languages, including French. --AJHingston (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (replacing my earlier !vote, which I have struck). I now realise that my objections are to the current version of the page, not to its existence. Despite disputing the sources provided by Smitchlovesfunk, I have no issue with the notability of the climbing classification of the 2013 TdF. Further, once a subject is established as notable, notability guidelines do not limit article content so my arguments above about sources "not establishing notability of the lists of results presented in the article" is meaningless. I still think the current article is overly detailed but, if consensus agrees with me on that, it can be solved through ordinary editing issue and therefore not a reason to delete. Dricherby (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was looking for just the information contained in this article (only for the 2012 Tour) and bemoaning its lack of existence. I would support both the existence of this article, going back through previous Tours to create simialr articles and adding this to the navbox for each year. This is a good and useful article containing data that isn't easily accessible elsewhere (it is on the ASO site for some previous years but takes a lot of time to look up each stage). Tour is obviously notable and KoM is one of its 3 main jerseys (generally ranked behind the green jersey but still notable). Data is not contained in the stage by stage articles and would not be easy to add there.Andrewdpcotton (talk) 09:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would also add that the Points Jersey as discussed before deserves an article along these lines and would also be a useful addition. I recently wrote an article previewing this year's Points competition and had to laboriously source the intermediate sprint data from last year's Tour and having it all on one wiki page would be very useful. As I stated the Points is considered the 2nd most important jersey ahead of KoM. The regulations on jersey wearing state:
The leaders of the general time ranking, the general points ranking, the best climber ranking and the general young riders ranking must wear:
• in the first case, the Yellow jersey;
• in the second case, the green jersey;
• In the third case, the white and red polka dot jersey;
• in the fourth case, the white jersey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewdpcotton (talk • contribs) 09:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Finally on the name issue I agree it should not be current name as KoM refers specifically to the winner and not the overall competition. I would however support "2013 Tour de France - Mountains Classification" or similar. It is true the official name is the "Best Climber" classification, however the official name for the yellow jersey competition is the "Individual Time Classification" and we don't use that, we instead use the General Classification as that is the common name for it. Whatever name is chosen it should match Mountains classification in the Tour de France so that article would need to be renamed Best climber classification in the Tour de France if the official nomenclature were to be preferred.Andrewdpcotton (talk) 10:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is now rather stale and ought to e closed. 2.96.226.24 (talk) 05:01, 22 July 2013 (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/2013_Tour_de_France_King_of_the_Mountains&oldid=1070557995"