Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swimming at the 2001 World Aquatics Championships – Men's 4 x 100 metre freestyle relay

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 no consensus. L Faraone 01:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swimming at the 2001 World Aquatics Championships – Men's 4 x 100 metre freestyle relay[edit]

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

I turned this into a redirect nearly three years ago when trying to help reduce the backlog of uncategorized pages. The page has no prose whatsoever and no references, the stats are just spit out without any sort of formatting or even names of the athletes involved. Per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of statistics I don't believe there is any encyclopedic value in listing the individual places each nation came in in a seperate article when there is already the article Swimming at the 2001 World Aquatics Championships. Without evidence of some sort of critical commentary on this specific event this is doomed never to be anything more than what it is now, even if the formatting issues are fixed. There's just not really anything much to say about it.

So, i was going to use proposed deletion, but upon looking a little deeper I found that there are several of these sub-articles that are basically nothing but lists of stats, which is not surprising because the only sources used to construct them were... wait for it... lists of stats. I will therefore be bundling them all into this nomination so that the community can decide if we should have these articles at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And here comes the rest of them:

As you can see the articles (with the exception of the first one that is unsourced and unformatted at this time) are virtually identical and rely on the same two sources which offer no commentary upon which to base an article. I think citing these sources at the parent article is sufficient, those wanting this level of detail for these results can go there and find it. I explicitly am not advocating merging them (although I would not object to redirecting them all to the parent article without merging) as I don't believe we should have long lists of sports (or any other) statistics. A stats table does not an encyclopedia article make, and as there seems little to nothing more to say about these events we should not have these articles at all, instead summarizing the entire main event as is already done at the parent article. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These articles are common in Wikipedia and just haven't been expanded yet. User:Bwilkins actually tried to do this exact thing (except with his admin powers without any input), but the majority of the community was against such actions and his mass deletions were reversed. Look at Athletics at the 2012 Summer Olympics or Swimming at the 2012 Summer Olympics. Every single event has a respective article (and they look better admittedly), but these articles will get there some day with work. At the moment, these articles can be looked at as stubs. Philipmj24 (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete There's no need for an individual article for any of these - they all belong in one single article about the championships that year. They should have stayed deleted the first time - the only reason they were restored was basically the equivalent of a WP:REFUND request at ANI. There's been plenty of time to try and improve these articles and it clearly cannot be done. As such, they're invalid WP:CFORK from one main article (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly think pages such as Swimming at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metre freestyle or Swimming at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metre butterfly are "CFORK" from one article. Of course, that rash thinking is what led to that incident in the first place. Philipmj24 (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the first only: while precedent (the other World Aquatics Championships from 1998 on) suggests we should have them, someone seems to have forgotten about this one from 2001 - the article isn't up to standard, and there's no indication that it'll be improved. Ansh666 23:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Keep all now that they've been improved. Ansh666 21:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said above, they can be thought of as stubs that require expansion. Just because they haven't been worked on isn't a reason to delete as stubs are common on Wikipedia. Philipmj24 (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I updated my comment; I stupidly didn't look at the rest of the articles before writing. Ansh666 23:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not buying the idea that they are just stubs that could be expanded. Expanded with what? As I mentioned in the nomination (I know, it was super long) the only sources are lists of stats. Unless there are other sources out there that have yet to be revealed, they literally cannot be expanded beyond their present state. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is one of consistency (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, if you will) - articles of this sort exist for all other World Aquatics Championships since 1998, as well as other competitions such as the Olympics. If you think this is indiscriminate, then every single article of this sort is indiscriminate, and should be deleted? Ansh666 23:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox, look at the two examples I listed above. Although they are far from it, they have the potential of being those types of articles. And yes, precedent is important. If we were to use your argument to delete those pages, what's stopping us from deleting possibly thousands of articles ranging from the World Championships to the Olympic Games? Philipmj24 (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (although it still applies as answer to this post as well) While we aren't debating that wider issue here, yes, I believe all articles like this, with no hope of ever being anything beyond a list of statistics, should be deleted. As I mentioned in the nom Wikipedia is explicitly not meant to be a collection of statistics: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources" Beeblebrox (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Beeblebrox - look at the TFA: it's one of these sorts of articles (Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Women's road race). This is the potential of one of these - while obviously these aren't quite there yet, who's to say they someday won't? The basic notability of several in this bunch have been shown through improving the articles themselves, and I'm sure there's a lot more that can be found. Ansh666 21:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this was a race where some notable things hapened. The famous Thorpedo swam his then fastest leg to repeat the famous victory over the USA's team that they'd done at the Olympics in Sydney the previous year. The US were also disqualified after the race which was notable and the Dutch set a European Record. I have added a ref. (Msrasnw (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

To add, in the 1500 metre race at the 2001 World Aquatics Championships, Hackett smashed the world record that stood until 2011. In the 400 metre race, Thorpe also broke the world record. These are definitely notable events (in which you can find sources) which have the potential for expansion, not just a "a collection of statistics". Philipmj24 (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a deletion discussion. Speaking hypothetically about the possibility of finding sources doesn't cut it. If you have got something better than just lists of stats, kindly share it with us. I've just looked at the articles you mention and the records you claim were broken. Unfortunately, the source used for those articles does not appear to make any mention of records, being again, just a list of finiishing times. So, either you got that information from some other source which for some reason you will not reveal or you are engaging in original research. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added commentary and references to the articles mentioned above and the 200 butterfly article. As for the other ones, you can either delete them or wait until someone else expands on them. I reiterate, these articles can be look at as stubs (which for some reason you don't believe) that have the potential for expansion. These are not just a collection of statistics. I'm not sure why you're a mission to delete these articles, but I hope they can survive. Philipmj24 (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. These are more than adaquitely covered on the pages of the athletes concerned. The newly-added references do not cover the race in detail, they cover the performances of particular athletes (the winners and/or the local athlete as the case may be). Stuartyeates (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about heats? How did they qualify for the final? Or splits of the particular relays? The main page only covers the first three places, but what about everyone else? Do they warrant a mention? As for the races and references, we aren't trying to go for specifics, but for notability. Philipmj24 (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Swimming at the 2001 World Aquatics Championships – Men's 4 x 100 metre freestyle relay now has text and references indicating to my mind sufficient notability. More work is needed but deletion would to my mind not help improve our encyclopedia. Brief stubs such as these were seem useful for starting articles such as these are now becoming. (Msrasnw (talk))

So has Swimming at the 2001 World Aquatics Championships – Men's 400 metre freestyle, Swimming at the 2001 World Aquatics Championships – Men's 1500 metre freestyle, and Swimming at the 2001 World Aquatics Championships – Men's 200 metre butterfly. 146.7.113.41 (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This Article is a stub anyway, so if the topic is well covered in the respective athletes' Articles, I don't see what difference it makes to have this Article. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: in what way is this topic well covered in the respective athletes' articles? (Msrasnw (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

As someone pointed out above, we are going for notability, not specifics. There are plenty of Websites other than Wikipedia devoted to covering every heat of every race. Let those Websites carry out their mission and Wiki carry out its own. That said, the respective athletes' Articles would have their medal records with dates and names of tournaments and events. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an article is a stub, that isn't a reason to delete it is it? Also, this isn't just about the results. World records were set. Notable events (with sources to back them up) occurred. The mission of Wikipedia would be to report on these notable events. But I would advise you to reread the articles. There's no way everything that's on those articles are on athletes's articles. Philipmj24 (talk) 00:03, 6 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:05, 6 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - no valid for deletion given. AFD is not cleanup. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the entire nomination? I ask because you somehow seemed to have missed my mention of WP:NOTSTATS, which is part of WP:NOT, which means I have in fact provided a perfectly valid reason for deletion. I mean, it's straight from the list of what Wikipedia is not for, so, pretty valid. Now, if you want to argue that these articles aren't just indiscriminate lists of statistics that's another story, but just baldly saying no reason was provided is easily proven false. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been discussed that these articles are more than statistics, but you seem to ignore that and haven't responded to that argument. 146.7.75.4 (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No way, this is not a good nom. There are so many worse articles that should be deleted. SOXROX (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAP is generally considered an invalid argument. I tried to be pretty thorough in my nomination, could you please be more explicit about what was "not good" about it? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to say that you didn't do a good job of explaining it, your argument's actually pretty thorough. The problem is, these pages you referenced are only a few of many weak pages. Look at Diving at the 2001 World Aquatics Championships – Men's 3 m synchro springboard for example. This article is much better written than that one. I'm not attacking your reasoning at all. SOXROX (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that's just one example (several others were also mentioned) in how these stubs can be expanded into more complete articles. Which again, proves they're more than stats. 146.7.75.4 (talk) 20:00, 17 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.