Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athletics at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Men's 100 metres (2nd nomination)


 * 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. While similar discussions have indeed resulted in delete, I just can't see any way either side of this discussion makes an argument that should supersede the other side's viewpoint. The discussion offers no further discernible clarification on the community's previous lack of position. S warm  ♠  20:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Athletics at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Men's 100 metres
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Can easily be handled in Athletics at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games, with all information unique to this article failing WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Similar discussions such as Pencak silat and Wushu have closed as delete. If this discussion results in delete, I'll likely nominate the rest of the similar Athletics articles jointly.

The previous nomination closed as no consensus due to my overly ambitious attempt to combine all similar articles from this multi-sport competition together. ~ RobTalk 21:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

In order to increase participation in this deletion discussion, I am placing a neutral notification on the talk pages of all editors who commented on the mass nomination's discussion. ~ RobTalk 08:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You wrote: "can easily be handled in Athletics at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games", so why are you asking for a deletion when the proper way is to merge and redirect? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * All relevant information (medal winners) is already at that article. The exact times of those who did not place in a relatively minor multi-sport event below the level of the Asian Games, European Games, et al, a schedule of the times each event took place, and the wind speed on the day of the event are not worth inclusion in this Wikipedia, although contributors may wish to try another wiki. I believe a redirect is not appropriate given the extremely unlikely use of this as a search term, although I wouldn't be strictly opposed to one. ~ RobTalk 02:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 22:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 22:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete all individual athletics articles of this competition, and keep only the general listing at the Athletics article, as proposed. The individual articles are excessive per WP:INDISCRIMINATE # 3. Kraxler (talk) 03:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  Talk  14:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep As part of a slow systematic way of deleting the whole thing, bit-by-bit. WP is not paper, so there's no real reason why we can't include this info. To say it "can be handled in Athletics at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games" defeats the object of having seperate article for all events at similar sporting events. What really needs to happen is an WP:RFC at WP:MSE (in conjuction with other projects, such as WP:OLYMPICS, WP:ATHLETICS, etc) to define notablity of results pages for multi-sporting events that are not the Olympics, Commonwealth Games, Asian Games, etc.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete The rational for deletion is identical to Articles for deletion/Pencak silat at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Women's 65 kg, mainly that the subpages for this level of event is just too much detail. All that is necessary is Athletics at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games which as all the medal winners. WikiPedia is not a WP:NOTSTATSBOOK with few or any of the athletes being notable.  Similar AfDs include for example  Articles for deletion/2014 Asian Wrestling Championships – Men's freestyle 57 kg.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge to Athletics at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Results. As per my previous comments, the best approach would be to merge sport-level result articles. This is a solution that already has form in other areas and also arranges material in a better fashion than a direct merge to the main articles (e.g.). The principal reason given for deletion (WP:NOTSTATSBOOK) explicitly promotes such a two-article approach – one for specific results and one for overall discussion – through it's comparison of Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012 and United States presidential election, 2012. The specific applicable point of "NOTSTATSBOOK" appears to be #3 ("Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles.") Arrangement of the content in a sport-level results article resolves both these issues and is within the spirit of that guideline. The content of the nominated article is not confusing by any means, though there should be greater explanatory text (which is more a content issue rather than an inclusion issue). SFB 11:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I come at this from the perspective of preserving information. We have certainly deemed international sports festivals and their results to be notable.  Downwardly merging into specific sports, particularly in the sport of Athletics which we are discussing here as a header, will create a huge article.  How do you make it more palatable?  By removing information.  That has already been done here to create the list of medalists.  That follows the standard protocol.  But we have much more information to present, and the event specific article is the place to retain it, to keep the main article from being too cumbersome or worse yet, (poof) making the information disappear.  As I probe wikipedia, the older the article, the less information we have.  Sources dry up, organizing committee web sites shut down after the shine of the event wears off.  Former details that were on paper go behind paywalls or are stored on microfiche.  Wikipedia, and the efforts of the hard working editors who post this information is one of the best places to retain this information.  I don't want to bring out a WP:CRYSTAL ball and predict these athletes will someday be notable.  You never know.  They all have achieved a level of notability by representing their country in an international competition.  Are we going to discriminate and say South East Asia is less important than say, the the Pan American states, now and forever?  Essentially that is a precedent you are establishing, that none of this information is ever going to be useful.  These athletes were the best their countries had to send to this international competition.  Next year, who will be the best athlete these countries have to offer to send to the Olympics?  Odds are, these same individuals, which will guarantee their notability.  And when wikipedia creates an article, all will have is a stub reporting that they showed up at the Olympics.  Where did these people come from, what did they do to merit their selection to the Olympics?  We HAD the information, we chose to delete it, the website goes down and it is lost forever.  Do I need to show you hundreds, perhaps thousands of wikipedia stub articles of Olympic athletes, that we know absolutely nothing about except they showed up at the Olympics?  Look at María Caridad Colón, an Olympic gold medalist in the last 35 years.  Without mention of the equatable Ibero-American Championships international championships, her article would be one sentence.  Until I created it 26 years after the event, World Champion Yekaterina Fesenko was a red link because I assume nobody could find information about her.  Wikipedia is not paper, the cost of retaining information is so small as to be incalculable.  We are here to provide information.  There is no damage being created by us having and retaining the information, currently sourced, already entered on this page and any other page like it. Trackinfo (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep "articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader". This appears to do that and can be further annotated. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That text in WP:NOTSTATSBOOK is preceded by "In addition", which means it is not to be taken as an exception to the requirement to avoid "long and sprawling lists of statistics". ~ RobTalk 19:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Certainly shorter and less sprawling than List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita, one of the standard almanac entries at Wikipedia. You have to define "long and sprawling list" so that a computer can identify what it means, and remove the subjectivity. Almanacs are nothing but statistics, just not "sprawling". A core principal of Wikipedia is to be an almanac. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nearly all policies on Wikipedia contain some subjectivity, notability being a major one. WP:IAR specifically makes subjectivity a policy, even. When you include information such as the wind speed on the day of the event, it's hard to justify the statistics as concise. Typing in some of the competitors' names into Google, which should return information about the event if these stats tables were noteworthy enough to warrant their own article with little to no prose, I find nothing whatsoever about this event in news articles. Try a search on "Sengpheth Phomphady", for instance. With keep rationales such as "part of a series" and statements that confer notability based on the notability of the event's sport have left me somewhat disappointed with the discussion here. It's an interesting exercise in AfD, though, and shows that consensus changes drastically depending on who shows up. None of the editors who voted delete at previous similar discussions decided to comment here, and consequentially, we likely will have an inconsistent outcome. ~ RobTalk 18:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As a participant in the first discussion, I'd rather have this issue discussed in an RFC as per Lugnuts, and defer (sorry guys) a decision on this until the RFC has been completed. – H T  D  20:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do you advocate for yet another discussion? AfD, RfC (much less CfD, TfD et al) whatever it is, are discussions between a very limited and not necessarily representative group.  Its just the few who happen to stumble onto the discussion and that regular bad faith crowd that roam these backrooms with a seeming single purpose to delete everything.  Moving it to a further discussion, are you hoping even fewer people can participate?  You have to admit these are a totally negative, totally destructive process.  The only purpose of these discussions is to destroy what exists.  Nothing positive ever comes from such a discussion.  At best, when a keep is decided upon, all we achieve is the status quo.  We keep the content, until the next attack from someone who didn't like the decision and we do the dance again.  Aside from this particular AfD, I have long advocated for opening up these discussions.  Automating a system to actively seek out and notify potentially interested parties.  That has gotten no traction.  Apparently those who know how to have the opportunity to express themselves prefer these decisions be made by the smallest sample of the millions of wikipedia readers and the thousands of editors possible.  I'm sorry, but the concept of moving these battles for deletion around just seems like WP:FORUMSHOPing, to make it a difficult to follow, moving target, to get a decision from a smaller sample.  How many articles, how much deserving content is obliterated by the "votes" of two or three high volume editors (self-appointed wikipedia WP:OWNers) every day? Trackinfo (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * An RfC would reach a larger audience and notability of these events can then be decided without the need of dragging each one through AfD.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So far, we have to defend this group of articles here, really a third time (I only knew about one of the first two). Then we have to go further to defend it again at RfC.  Pound hard enough and eventually that will get this content that already exists, deleted, which seems to be the goal.  Will every commenter in these like articles get notified?  I doubt it.  We will suddenly see the content deleted by an RfC we never heard of. That is a result by plan.  It happens all the time. Trackinfo (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about deletion? The RfC would establish what is notable. These articles would almost certainly make the inclusion criteria. Futher AfDs would be set as keep (or even speedy keep). I don't see a downside.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If this and several articles are going to be deleted, they'll be deleted. It doesn't matter when. Same thing for the reverse (if they'll be kept). At least with an RFC, there'd be more people, and more pegs to stand on rather than an AFD. It's also easier to overturn an AFD than an RFC so we could have more consistency in dealing with similar articles. Once we have an RFC to delete, it'll become so much easier to delete articles such as this, rather than going at it one by one per sport. – H T  D  21:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Article is part of a series. If you want that this page would be deleted, you should nominate all the pages like:

etc. etc. Sander.v.Ginkel (Je suis Charlie) 23:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC) Modified the templates which hinders the layout in AfD listing-- JAaron95 Talk  11:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The last discussion close as no consensus largely in response to that type of mass nomination, so I am test running a single article first. If this one is deleted, the rest of Athletics will be nominated together. There was consensus at the last discussion that it would be inappropriate to nominate too many of these articles together. ~ RobTalk 00:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A bit of dammed if you do, dammed if you don't. Yes there were too many in the first AfD to comfortably delete en masse but one article of a series is a little low.  I would have nominated all the running articles from 2015 but that said - this article should survive or not on its own merits.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that were this to be closed as delete, the others in Athletics would be nominated jointly, as noted in my original post. I'm using the procedure described at WP:MULTIAFD. List one, see how it goes, and then nominate the rest in the "group". ~ RobTalk 00:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge to Athletics at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Results. Some of the non-olympic sports in SEA Games (ex: Pencak Silat, Netball, Wushu, Floorball, etc) is more likely to be over-detailed and may violate WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. I personally agree with the mentioned articles' deletion because it is too detailed and full of red-linked links which are not going to become an article in the next 5-10 years. But, this article is about Athletics, the sport which is widely practiced and has been in the Games since 1959. These results can be just a random list of names and numbers for someone outside Southeast Asia, but not for those sports fan living in the region. Griff88 (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete all: Thanks to I will agree deleted individual articles to "Athletics at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games - Men's 100 metres" close as delete and keep only the general listing at the Athletics article, as proposed. Boyconga278 (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2015 (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.