Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Summer Olympics medals per capita


 * 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   delete. Policies and guidelines do not clearly favour either side. It's more about whether this is an appropriate statistic to include in an encyclopedia. The consensus here (albeit not an overwhelming one) is that is it not.  Sandstein  19:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

2008 Summer Olympics medals per capita

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Original research. Also violates WP:NPOV for pushing a minority POV and WP:RS for using a blog entry (albeit one from the LA Times) for its only page reference.

Please see past AFDs about similar Olympic medal sorting schemes:


 * Articles for deletion/1996 Summer Olympics medals per capita
 * Articles for deletion/2004 Summer Olympics Medals Earned Per Capita
 * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympic Medal Statistics: Medal Count Winners

Madchester (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC) http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/thepress/4667484a6009.html http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/editorial/story.html?id=47d1c547-967b-4ba3-ba0c-0735367c27a7 http://www.theolympian.com/olympics/story/557404.html http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/olympics/wires/08/21/2090.ap.oly.inside.the.rings/ http://www.dailynk.com/english/read.php?cataId=nk00100&num=3995 http://www.montsame.mn/index.php?option=com_news&task=news_detail&tab=200808&ne=1277 Sad mouse (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Questions: Nominator, given the eight additional international news media sources added by Sad mouse, do you stand by your accusations in this nomination? If so, which accusations in particular: OR, NPOV, and/or RS? Neut Nuttinbutter (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Given your refusal to tell me what position I am trying to advance, your citation of WP:SELFPUBLISHED was particularly odd. It says, "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." My understanding is that Culpepper has been with the Los Angeles Times for some time, and was on assignment under the direction of an editor at an established international news organization with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
 * Compromise proposal: merge into Olympic medal table and/or 2008 Summer Olympics medal table. I will withdraw my request that you substantiate your baseless accusations of POV-pushing and a lack of reliable sources, and I hope you will withdraw the baseless accusations themselves, in the spirit of WP:CCC and WP:OI.  Thank you for your consideration. Neut Nuttinbutter (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Perhaps the top five are worth a mention in the main article 2008 Summer Olympics medal table, but there is no need for its own article. Reywas92 Talk  23:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per all the comments repeatedly made for past articles. There are no reliable sources to support this type of article (the LA Time blog for this particular year is only a top 25 and does not state where they got their population numbers), and any attempt to extend or "improve" the list would clearly be original research.  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Affirm delete. I have just read the external links added to the article after my first AfD comments, and I still believe that a standalone article is not warranted.  The set of media articles don't even agree with each other—sometimes per capita calculations are used, and sometimes it is per GDP, so they really can't be used as a set of references for that "top 25" table of numbers.  I think the most appropriate outcome for this discussion is a deletion of the article, but also the addition of no more than a brief paragraph of prose text (and no tables) to the 2008 Summer Olympics medal table that discusses the criticism of the standard medal table, using some of these articles as cited references.  Anything more than that would be WP:undue weight.  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per precedent. Pie is good   (Apple is the best)  23:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:CCC Neut Nuttinbutter (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or, by Reywas92's suggestion, merge a limited version into the main article. The article could easily be improved by adding any of the multiple main-stream media outlet references that referred to per capita medal counts. Trying to delete the article within minutes of creation does not give anyone the chance to add additional references. While this system of counting is not as common as simple totals, it was in multiple media outlets and is therefore not original research. Citing precedent is not helpful, as the per capita tables did not make main-stream media in previous games and was therefore original research. In this games they did make main-stream media and are therefore not original research by definition. Madchester's stated position on inclusion "Unless I woke up tomorrow morning and every newspaper and news agency adopted such a medals/capita system, such content is not permissible on Wikipedia" seems to be an unobtainable standard and indicates the bias of Madchester against such a system regardless of how it meets actual wikipedia criteria.Sad mouse (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. As I listed above, the article fails the three fundamental policy pillars of Wikipedia. Please don't take my analogy out of context, as it was in reference to following WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:NOR.  If a medal/capita standard was universally adopted by the IOC and world press, then it would easily satisfy the three listed policies. --Madchester (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Universal adoption is not and never has been the standard. Here are examples of main-stream media that discuss per capita winnings for 2008, as you can see there are many from different main-stream media outlets in multiple countries, this was just a small sample from a quick search: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-08/23/content_9653160.htm http://3news.co.nz/News/SportsNews/NewZealandawinnerperheadofpopulation/tabid/415/articleID/68358/cat/70/Default.aspx
 * Comment. While these articles discuss different/alternative ways of tallying medals, none of them are actually practiced by any reliable source. (A quick check indicates that these sources still use the IOC tally, if not a total medal count) Nor do they have any common tallying method (for example, do they all get their population figures from the same source?  Do they do medals/capita or golds/capita? etc.)  They're ultimately op-ed pieces and violate WP:NOR, if not WP:NPOV for pushing a specific opinion not shared by the majority.
 * I think this situation also fails WP:SYN. You can't use Source A and Source B to come to Conclusion C.... unless both sources independently reach the same Conclusion C.  Right now, each of the alternative medal tallies listed have their own methodology and placements, so they're not reaching the same conclusion... --Madchester (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment.' As an add-on, most of these new stories discussing a medals/capita tally refer to the personal website of one Bill Mitchell. Per WP:SELFPUBLISHED, we avoid using personal websites as reliable sources.  On his site, Mr. Mitchell also states that I am currently hating the idea of China hosting the Olympic Games. In fact, I am hating the Olympic Games concept these days in general, so that throws WP:NPOV out the window. --Madchester (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Comment' Your original issue was that no one in the main stream media cared about per capita tables. I found many articles to show that this position was incorrect. Now you change your issue to saying that main-stream media articles that discuss a concept originally brought up on an individual blog cannot be used. This is absolutely not the point of WP:SELFPUBLISHED. If a blog idea gets taken up by the main-stream media it becomes news and is no longer original research. The motive of Mr Mitchell is just as irrelevant as your person motive for blocking this, the point is that whether the idea was originally his or not it was widely reported in the media of multiple countries. It certainly doesn't violate WP:NPOV because nowhere does it claim this is a better or worse measure, it simply reports a measure which was widely discussed in the media. Just listing wikipedia policies doesn't mean much if your use of them is inappropriate. Sad mouse (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as it stands. The article currently uses total medals, rather than the official IOC G-S-B ratings, and as such is pretty much fluff. If a source can be found for a G-S-B ranking, Id like to see that information Merged per Reywas92. I dont believe it violates NOR or NPOV, but it definitely violates RS. It is worthwhile information, imo, and adding it as an aside into the official tally page might have some value. Metao (talk) 01:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Affirm Delete per Andrwsc. Metao (talk) 05:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Issue has been discussed over and over again. Clearly is not congruent with Wikipedia's policies. Nirvana888 (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per everything above. It should also be noted that the person defending this type of statistical format and article happens to be Australian. Seems kind of agenda-ish. Geologik (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Poor form. I was born in Australia and live in America. I have no idea where Neut Nuttinbutter (who made the article, not myself) is from. Have a look through my edit history, I have never edited a sporting article and I have never made any "pro-Australia" edits. You appear to be from America and to be extensively invested in editing sporting articles, yet I don't accuse you of voting delete (and it does appear to just be a vote, since you didn't use any reasoning) just because the US performs poorly on a per capita basis. It would be polite to at least look into a user's history before assuming bad faith. Also Australia is pretty much the only country that has almost the same rank by either measure, so I don't even understand what the agenda would be Sad mouse (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - violates any number of policies. Basement12 (T.C) 02:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into the main article. The article is actually referenced, so there is actually no violation of OR as some insist, but there is no need to stand as an article on its own for fails notability compared to the main list.--Huaiwei (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per everything above. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This is deletionism taken to a senseless extreme. The article clearly isn't original research - the information is sourced to an external reference. WP:RS does deprecate the use of blogs but actually says "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." LATimes is, I think we can agree, a reliable third party publication and the person who wrote the article Chuck Culpepper is described here as a "lead sports columnist" - sounds like an established expert to me. The final argument - NPOV - is a poor argument for deletion. AndrewRT(Talk) 13:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note Also, looking at the precedent none of those tabulations had a referenced source - hence why they were clearly OR and deletable. Hence the precedent doesn't apply here. AndrewRT(Talk) 13:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per precedent & policy vio. Prince of Canadat 13:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. If large countries (i.e. the United States) were allowed to send a number of athletes in the same proportions as smaller countries (i.e. the Bahamas), perhaps such a article would make sense. As is, NOCs are restricted to one team in team events and one or two entrants in many individual events. Phizzy (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not recognized and supported by experts and specialists in sport industry. Cannot simply calculate in the sense of economy (like GDP) as winning medals is subject to different factors and Olympic rules. -Ngckmax (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  14:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete pushing a POV, there are disparancies in the world, thats it. Per nom  Monster Under Your Bed  (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Additional references added and proposed merge format display on discussion page. Sad mouse (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin - Eight additional reports in established international news media were just added to the article by Sad mouse, and so I ask that this entire debate be considered as part 1 (above this note) and part 2 (below), with part 1 being informative only and part 2 being operative. I do not understand the deletion arguments, but to the extent I do understand them, they do not seem to be based on actual Wikipedia policies or guidelines, or, in the case of "POV-pushing," do not specify the point of view which is said to have been pushed. As the accused pusher, I can't think of it, either. Neut Nuttinbutter (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Several affirmations of opinions have been made above this comment, but after the comment was posted. Please check timestamps of opinions above. Metao (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The first citation, used to show where the table comes from, is the only source actually implemented in this article. The other eight are only used to say something along the lines of "don't delete this article as it is notable". It is simply ridiculous using EIGHT SOURCES to say "Other media sources reported on per-capita medals as well." Nonetheless, most (all actually) of the remaining eight citations are flawed: Many of the sources in the article are trivial. Two sources have nothing with "medals per captia", as they discuss "medals per GDP", something completely different: One source is out of date. The last source is basically a summary of the table from the Los Angeles Times blog. Finally, not pertinent to this AfD, but the article's title incorrect as well. If you name it "2008 Summer Olympics medals per capita", the table should show show the ratio of medals per population, not the opposite. If this was ever to be kept, it should be renamed to something like "Ratio of population per medal of the 2008 Summer Olympics". Do U(knome)? yes...or no 23:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, this does not "violate any number of policies". Its been reported on, and its a simple to calculate statistic. No OR involved. --Reinoutr (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Absolutely fails the OR policy. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: Does the Los Angeles Times not have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as described in WP:V and WP:RS? Neut Nuttinbutter (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's no reason to believe it's not NPOV (how would it be POV?), the information is well sourced - the above note provides even more - and it isn't OR. OR is referring to original research, such as a scientific paper I self-publish in my basement with no outside recognition. OR does not apply to this article. It's a perfectly reasonable statistic, and dividing two numbers is not OR. By that logic, you could call almost anything "per capita" POV and OR. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 23:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not original research (the data were already there), it is sourced, and it contains interesting information. Also, I don't see a reason why it should not be neutral: it has only information, not opinions. Eynar Oxartum (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and Comment: GDP and winning medals are subject to different factors. If population is significant, how can you answer why India (with 1.1 billion people) got 1 gold medal while China (with 1.3 billion people) get 51 gold medals. It tells us there is not direct relationship between no. of medals won and population of a country. Wining medals is subject to Olympic entry rule and National Sport Policy of an individual nation. -59.149.32.77 (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not a complaint based on wikipedia policy. It would be original research to cite reasons why China and India have such different performance. One wonders how anyone could possibly assume that population doesn't play a role, but that is neither here nor there. Try not to base your assessment on whether you agree with the article but on whether it violates any wikipedia policies. Sad mouse (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is conceptual incorrect. How can I go further to discuss if any violation of Wiki policies. -59.149.32.77 (talk) 10:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete — The article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There really is not enough significant coverage to determine an independent article, considering the media amplitude of the Olympics. Note the following of the current nine citations:
 * 1) This only discusses New Zealand's position in the medal count per capita.
 * 2) This one is about the "cost" of New Zealand's medals and only makes a trivial statement of their ranking.
 * 3) This one only refers to "per capita" when it says "Most of the rest of the world — other than those calculating by per capita or economic formulas, that is — renders its standings in order of gold medals won."
 * 4) This one is an article criticizing the common medal tables. The only way someone might have thought it is connected to a 2008 Summer Olympics medals per capita table is because when it says "On a medal-per-capita basis, Canada easily outranks the two Olympic superpowers." Again, trvial coverage.
 * 1) This one from Sports Illustrated
 * 2) And this from The Daily NK. If this article is kept, then an article of "medals per GDP" should be created.
 * Question - if your position is that it is not notable enough for its own independent page, then why do you advocate delete instead of merge? I'm sure the references could be improved, the eight I put in were just from a thirty second google news search, I saw longer and better articles in print and there are many many hits. Your criteria for excluding articles was rather harsh (yes, obviously articles that were written during the games are "out of date" but the reference was to say that it was reported during the games; and an article basically summarising the LA Times table seems to me perfect evidence that the LA Times table was reported in the media), but it seems reasonable to cut it down to one or two good references Sad mouse (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge. I basically agree with Sad mouse. The article simply shows statistics. It does not imply that this method of ranking is better nor does it imply that Bahamas should be ranked the top in the world. It's just the same medal count shown in a different way. It seems to me that WP:NPOV is being violated by people who want to delete this article more than the article itself. Wookie919 (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The problem of neutrality is not so much about which method is "better" or not.  I think the most relevant section of that policy is WP:NPOV.  A brief mention of criticism and/or alternate calculations is appropriate for the main medal table article; an entire standalone article on the topic is not. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - where do we draw the line on statistics? If some journalist decides to post an article on "number of medals per head of cattle", or any other ranking method, should that have a seperate article also? It would be the same medal count shown in a different way. There is no clear link between population and number of medals (see China vs India vs Australia for example) so this ranking method is not significant. If it is substantially referenced give the system a brief paragraph and no more at Olympic medal table. — Basement12 (T.C) 03:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The lack of link between population/medals is exactly the point of this table and that is exactly what makes this table useful. One might claim that more population would naturally increase the chance of finding better athletes, but this table gives some evidence to the contrary. (Hm, do certain countries naturally have better athletes? Maybe.) Statistical representation can be used to show the link between two variables, but it can also be used to show the lack of such a link. I want to clarify that I didn't vote Strongly Keep. I said Keep or merge, and I am equally happy with both. I also didn't say that the current ranking method should be criticized. I just don't want (what I believe to be) a useful form of statistical representation getting completely wiped from wikipedia. Wookie919 (talk) 05:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree with Wookie919, in fact, for an athlete in a big country it is more difficult to win a medal, because to qualify s/he has to get through a national-level competition in his own country. Wikipedia is not here to criticise anything, but to show how are things (remember that the difference between an encyclopedia and a dictionary is that the former gives some insight into how things are, not just describing them). Showing the fact that the country gets more medals while the athletes have it harder is interesting. An example: Benjamin Boukpeti, a half-French half-Togolese kayaker, preferred to defend Togo's flag, because it was more difficult to qualify being French (and he later won the first medal ever for Togo). Eynar Oxartum (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That really sounds like you are calling for a keep just because it's useful, not considering whether the article meets or not any notability criteria. — Do U(knome)?  yes...or no 06:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you read my comment you will see I was not speaking about usefulness, but about the insight it gives into this subject. It is not a phone list (useful, but no insight into anything). If this medal table is deleted, the same reasons would be good enough to delete all the other medal tables. Personally I would prefer to integrate this article as a section of the main medal table Eynar Oxartum (talk) 07:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ...as long as the amount of content "integrated" into the main article does not give it WP:Undue weight. These per-capita, per-GDP, per-whatever medal tables are clearly a minority view, not used by any major media organisations.  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 07:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The "insight it gives into this subject" is not a reason to keep an article, according to WP:Notability. By the way, this article has no subject. It's just a table copied and pasted from a website! What insight does this article give...any derived conclusions are personal and are really quite unreasonable due to the "lack of link between population/medals" as you said. — Do U(knome)?  yes...or no 07:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all I think you are confusing between wookie919 (me) and Eynar Oxartum. Also I am sorry that I misled you with my final sentence above. I DO sound like I want to keep or merge the article just because it is useful. That is simply not true. I wouldn't have voted to keep or merge if I thought the article violated any of the wikipedia rules. Also according to IT IS USEFUL: There are some times when "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful". Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. I believe a non-trivial number of people will consider this table useful because the table demonstrates that there is no clear link between population and the number of medals obtained. I fail to understand why you keep referring to the lack of link between the two variables as reasoning for the table not being useful, when in fact it is the table that shows the lack of relationship. Wookie919 (talk) 09:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * An entire article, or even just the table of 25 (or more) sets of numbers, is overkill if the point you wish to make is that there is no clear link between population and the number of medals obtained. A sentence of prose text in the main article would suffice. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 09:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * delete. Published sources != notable as an encyclopedia article. SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.