Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia at the team sports international competitions


 * 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. I'm don't normally like incrementally adding additional articles to an existing AfD, because it's sometimes not clear which comments apply to which articles. In this case, the additional articles were added almost immediately after the original nomination and there seems to be clear consensus that they should all be treated the same way, so calling this Delete All. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Australia at the team sports international competitions

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Entire premise of article is original research. It is a synthesis of uncited published material (which appears to be Wikipedia itself) that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. The conclusions, such as comparing the Australian men's cricket team's silver medal at the 1998 Commonwealth Games to the Australian men's basketball team's 17 continental championships (incidentally, this number is out-of-date and counts only one particular continental competition), are fundamentally flawed. The table form is too simplistic to provide any meaningful comparison given the varying levels of competition and organisation. Hack (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Addendum to nomination - since my nomination of the Australian article, articles in a similar style have been bundled below. The sole sources are to http://sports123.com/ a currently inactive sports results site which doesn't not appear to be a reliable source. The articles should be deleted for the same reasons as the Australian articles. Hack (talk) 15:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Support per nom (thanks for putting this through the right channels for me).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support For all the above reasons, plus the fact that the name is grammatically gruesome, and makes almost no sense. HiLo48 (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * adding;
 * all part of the same set of articles which were prod'd but due to commonalities and prior discussion AFD was suggested. Gnangarra 09:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * all part of the same set of articles which were prod'd but due to commonalities and prior discussion AFD was suggested. Gnangarra 09:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * all part of the same set of articles which were prod'd but due to commonalities and prior discussion AFD was suggested. Gnangarra 09:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * all part of the same set of articles which were prod'd but due to commonalities and prior discussion AFD was suggested. Gnangarra 09:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Not forgetting:


 * Also;
 * Support for reasons above. --Falcadore (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment While all these articles seem silly, I am primarily here to argue for deletion of the Australian article. It will be disappointing if the existence of the other articles gets in the way of deletion of the Australian one. They should probably all be deleted, but I don't see why they have to be treated as a package if that's going to make things more complicated. HiLo48 (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The arguments for keeping and deleting any of them are identical. Grouping such articles together is commonplace and routine. --Falcadore (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe. I still cannot comprehend why they have lasted as long as they have. I already believe that the existence of multiple articles has delayed the deletion of any of them. HiLo48 (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Obscure wording of the article titles. No-one would look for an article with a name like that and they don't really link to anything. Just obscurity. --Falcadore (talk) 10:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with that. HiLo48 (talk) 11:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. AlanS''talk 23:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. AlanS''talk 23:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. AlanS''talk 23:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. AlanS''talk 23:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Support and Delete all as per nomination. AlanS''talk 23:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support/delete all. Mess of original research, poorly sourced at an incomprehensible title on a topic that doesn't make sense. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete All, not sure how these have managed to survive for so long, but quite clearly massively flawed from the title all the way down. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC).


 * QuestionWhat happens next? Who does it? HiLo48 (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * answer an independent admin will review and make a decision based on consensus and then take the appropriate action Gnangarra 04:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * When? HiLo48 (talk) 07:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * merge into Sport_in_Australia especially the tables where they have some relevance similarly for the other articles. While the content is currently sourced to WP articles its clear the information meets notability requirements and has reliable 3rd party sources available otherwise those articles wouldnt exist. They arent WP:OR all they appear to be is a fork of Sport in Australia Gnangarra 09:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge if you must. Just get rid of this idiotic name and stupid comparisons. Now. HiLo48 (talk) 06:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The nature of the compilation of the data is what is WP:OR. The article is grouping together events that are not grouped together otherwise. The raw data is of course not original, but presenting it in this manner, and particularly drawing connections between sports where none exist, is very definately OR. --Falcadore (talk) 07:02, 12 September 2014 (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.