Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bodybuilding competitions featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger


 * 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 TO DELETE. Herostratus 14:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Bodybuilding competitions featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - bodybuilding competitions are not notable based on who competed in them. Nor is Schwarzenegger's mere participation in an event automatically notable to him. Otto4711 19:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Excessively trivial association.  A r k y a n  &#149; (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, ditto. Realkyhick 21:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete no useful content--Sefringle 22:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Not quite sure I see the difference between this article and Arnold Schwarzenegger filmography. It's a trivial subject about which I couldn't care less but that does not make it any less of a decent subarticle of Arnold_Schwarzenegger. The thing could use some more context and/or be transformed into Arnold_Schwarzenegger's bodybuilding career but I don't really see how this can be considered indiscriminate information. Pascal.Tesson 22:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that the nomination does not suggest that the information is indiscriminate. The nomination is posited on questions of notability. Otto4711 03:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But notability of what exactly? The competitions? Obviously, Mr Olympia and Mr Universe are certainly very very notable. Don't know about Mr Europe but I'd give it the benefit of the doubt. Schwarzie himself is of course notable and his bodybuilding was a significant part of his life. With all due respect, I don't think the nomination rationale makes any sense. Pascal.Tesson 04:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The article asserts that Schwarzenegger's mere participation in the events makes the events notable. The asserted notability is the intersection of the event and the person. Otto4711 12:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The events themselves are undoubtedly notable. The article lists those events in which Schwarzenegger, one of the most successful bodybuilders of his time, took part. What could be wrong with that? Pascal.Tesson 12:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've already explained what could be wrong with that. It's a meaningless intersection. Otto4711 12:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... Is Arnold Schwarzenegger filmography a similarly meaningless intersection? If not, what difference do you see? Pascal.Tesson 14:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well of course the existence of one article has no bearing on the existence of another, so the question is invalid on its face. Otto4711 14:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hardly. In this case, the parallel is too obvious to ignore. Before invoking WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS to avoid answering the question, you should give it a moment's thought. The reason why we have a lot of filmographies is that these are usually interesting, verifiable, sourceable content which is too bulky to include in main articles. It seems like a decent solution then to create a separate subarticle and I still fail to see why this reasoning does not apply here. Pascal.Tesson 14:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but you're the one who's suggesting that the filmography article is justification for the bodybuilding article. You're the one implicating WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, not me. The filmography stands or falls on its own and the bodybuilding article stands or falls on its own. I've offered my reasons for why I believe this article should be deleted. The intersection of "bodybuilding competition" and "featuring A.S." is not notable. If you disagree, that's fine. But if your only response to that is to point at the filmography article then that shows a pretty weak case for keeping. Otto4711 16:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Arbitrary unindent. Ok then, perhaps you can explain what "non-notable intersection" means. The fact is that the bodybuilding career of Schwarzenegger is something that has been written about extensively, in multiple reliable third-party sources. Would you be so adamant to delete this article if it was called "Bodybuilding career of Arnold Schwarzenegger" (which is really what this page is meant to be)? If so, then a simple move will do. Pascal.Tesson 16:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge most notable as per Masaruemoto, delete the rest
 * Keep per Pascal.Tesson. Epbr123 23:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge the most notable events, or the ones that he won, into the bodybuilding career section of the main Arnold Schwarzenegger article. Masaruemoto 18:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Have observed the seperate articles devoted to his films and politics. Bodybuilding is the third (well first actually) part of his career and whichever way you look at it Arnie is an A*-notable person. I think maybe the article could be expanded a little to justify not merging it but as Pascal.Tesson points out, there shouldn't be much trouble sourcing it. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ SpeakSign 02:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as a bodybuildography per Pascal.Tesson. The analogy makes a lot of sense as Schwarzenegger is notable for both bodybuilding and film, so the intersection is notable. –Pomte 02:28, 3 April 2007 (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.