Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men's 200 metres Ukrainian record progression

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 redirect to List of Ukrainian records in athletics. The 100m article is not properly nominated but may be redirected at editorial discretion. T. Canens (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Men's 200 metres Ukrainian record progression[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)

Essentially, listcruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. Unreferenced and possible OR. TheLongTone (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Creating editor has also just created Men's 100 metres Ukrainian record progression; I'd bundle it only I have a track record of fluffing the procedure... and there are a budle of (I think) dubious categories.TheLongTone (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 15:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 15:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLongTone:, thank you for raising that! I attempted to populate both articles (on 100 and 200 metres record progression) with references to sources and hope that addresses your concern. Being the author of the same topics in Ukrainian Wikipedia, I would like to note that, unfortunately, there are no English-language sources relating to the subject of the articles in question. I listed the available sources, all in Ukrainian, in the articles. On a related point, I believe that both Ukraine-related lists appear to be now no worse than, for example, those relating to progression of Italian records. Best regards, Andrii Grebonkin (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both the 200m and 100m articles to List of Ukrainian records in athletics. Progression is really only notable for world records. Ajf773 (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both Personally the page for both of these isn't really necessary as I feel like it is just something that should fall under WP:NOTSTATS. I do understand it being allowed on the Ukrainian Wikipedia as Ukrainian is only really spoken in Ukraine. But I would say this is like creating an American progression bar of a record (aka a useless fact that easily be explained in the national article) HawkAussie (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As progression articles go, this is quite complete. Someone (the editor's name is Andrii Grebonkin went through a lot of effort to compile this and if they continue, we will have a listing of historical data from this country, as we already do from others. I'm not naming names because the attitude of clueless deletionists would turn those into future AfD victims too. Each of those were largely created by one inspired editor who knew where to find the information. I've done countless record progressions myself. My point is you can stop this editor's efforts right now, discourage them from contributing and wikipedia will be sanitized of this terrible content. That was sarcasm. This is the beginning of exactly the kind of body of work that wikipedia should be proud to host. We will know a lot more from this poorly covered section of the world. I know of what I speak. I was badly burned in an AfD because of the difficulty of finding sources in former Soviet republics. The press stinks there. We've got someone with inside knowledge, who speaks Ukranian, finding and understanding sources. We should praise them for helping. Oh, a redirect would be a stupid, completely useless step. All that would do is excise all of this information. There is no way to save and present this information without either a separate page, which this is, or a template with the same content. Redirect is just a way to make this content disappear without using the word delete. Trackinfo (talk) 07:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just who is being called a mindless deletionist here? See WP:CIVIL.TheLongTone (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both: Per User:Ajf773. I don't see the need for these "stats" in a stand alone article either. I am not trying to rain on anyone's parade but the tear-jerking plea to "save our editors" by not deleting (or redirecting) their hard work is commendable but may be somewhat melodramatic. With that actual mentality we should never delete any article especially that "might" possibly have coverage out there somewhere. I am sorry if sourcing requirements get in the way of having some articles but it is part of our "Five pillars". Claims that deletion would "excise all of this information" is not accurate as it is covered in another version of Wikipedia. I don't agree that all information in all versions of Wikipedia needs to be duplicated in every single version otherwise why not just combine then all into one? Otr500 (talk) 05:10, 4 June 2019 (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.