Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boxing at the 1904 Summer Olympics – Middleweight

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 merge‎ to Boxing at the 1904 Summer Olympics. Sandstein 11:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boxing at the 1904 Summer Olympics – Middleweight[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This topic does not meet standalone notability. It would be better to delete it per WP:NOT or to merge it to Boxing at the 1904 Summer Olympics as an alternative to deletion. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Olympics. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the moment, at least. There is a long-standing consensus from years back (around 18 years, to be exact, when this was created) that having all the results simply make the main Olympics page too long and thus an editorial decision was made to split them all into individual event articles. These have been regarded as acceptable for the past 18 years and every event in Olympic history has one; a wider discussion should take place to determine whether these are inappropriate, rather than a single AFD which I honestly don't think would be a sufficient consensus level to overturn such a long-standing and wide-spread practice. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question unrelated. If the consensus is changed how do people perform such rearrangement cleanly बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the consensus has changed to that these thousands (tens of thousands?) of event articles are inappropriate, well, then we'd have quite the cleanup project on our hands... Now, before we try to bulldoze through these I think that first, a wider discussion should be held (maybe at some part of the village pump or WT:SPORTS?) as to (1) whether they're appropriate and (2) what to do if they're not appropriate. Merging to a main event article would probably be best if these splits are deemed inappropriate; however, this has not been determined yet, hence my "keep" !vote. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Boxing, United States of America, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge without prejudice for other pages similar to it, simply because it's the only sensible thing to do. Add a fifth column at Boxing at the 1904 Summer Olympics, detailing the competition in prose. Geschichte (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Boxing at the 1904 Summer Olympics: Don't agree that this should be procedurally kept, and never agree with the constant WP:OSE arguments from BF11. As it stands, this subject does not meet the GNG on its own and as such is better covered as part of the article about the boxing competitions at these games. User:Let'srun 14:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per BeanieFan11. As much as it may seem unremarkable from today's perspective, it is an Olympic event from the beginning of the 20th century. The context for the time and relevance must be considered in this case. Svartner (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Svartner: I proposed a merge and no context or information is lost through a merge. It's not that it is unremarkable either, it's just that there was no competition leading up to the gold/silver medal match. From Boxing at the 1904 Summer Olympics, the events are linked as "Details", but there are no details here that couldn't fit into the table at Boxing at the 1904 Summer Olympics, either with a fifth column or an extra row. Geschichte (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand better, if it's not going to change the basis of the information, I endorse it for merge. Svartner (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge given the small amount of content and limited sources (I didn't find anything better than the one cited in the article in a quick search) a merge makes sense. May not be needed for other years with more bouts or easier to find coverage. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2024 (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.