Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China at the 37th Chess Olympiad


 * 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. Fram (talk) 12:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

China at the 37th Chess Olympiad

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete Orphan article that simply duplicates information already available at 37th Chess Olympiad Mayalld (talk) 12:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Redundant. No good reason for a split. This wasn't done for the numerous other Chess Olympiads as far as I can see - Category:Chess Olympiads. If an editor wants a split they should propose it with a } tag and reach consensus. Until there is a consensus that it should be done this way, delete it since it normally isn't TheBilly (talk) 12:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per directly above. Sean MD80 talk 22:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. I don't see the need for all of this detail to have an article.  I appreciate all of the work the editor did, but I don't think Wikipedia is the proper place for it.  Bubba73 (talk), 04:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Slow down and comment Please don't bite the newbies!! As far as I understand the two pages China at the Chess Olympiads and China at the 37th Chess Olympiad have been created by User:Gollenaiven and they are its first contribution for Wikipedia. In that perspective his work is really impressive. So regardless of the usual discussion about notable or not, I think we should be extra-careful before taking a decision on this article, because we should not discourage a new editor who has put so much efforts in that article and is rewarded only by dry sentences like "your article will be deleted", "redundant", "simply duplicates information already available" and so on. As he is probably not aware of all our bureaucratic stuff, we should give him extra-opportunities to discuss, explain its case and understand its arguments. Probably this sounds milion miles away from any Rule or Policy, but sometimes a bit of humanity could help in Wikipedia.
 * Of course, if I am misguided and this user is not a new editor, everything I say hereover is just plain stupid ;-) SyG (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We're here to discuss the merits of the article. While it's regrettable to put significant effort into an article that turns out to be unworthy of inclusion, that should not affect the decision to keep or delete this article. "Don't bite the newbies" means "Don't yell at them, don't mock them, don't call them names", etc, but it doesn't mean "throw out your good judgement". This is not his article - WP:OWN - it's the community's article. If it's bad, it needs to go. If it's good, it needs to stay. A vote of delete means "this article doesn't belong here" not "the primary contributor is stupid and I hate him" TheBilly (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep as it is passes for notability and verifiability. Arguments for deletion I'm afraid are obsolete. It's not a straight duplication of "what's already available" in another article. Anybody who follows chess would instantly know that this not a split either. Lop.dong (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, with the same reason for similar discussion: Articles for deletion/China at the Chess Olympiads. Dekisugi (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. This should be kept as it doesn't satisfy any criteria under Reasons for deletion as its copied from another online encyclopedia that's not under copyvio. This is a good way of countering systemic bias against lesser profile competitive events. Humortueio (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. What about: WP:NOT "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", #4: statistics? Bubba73 (talk), 05:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. These articles are regrettably 'off-message' and place far too much emphasis on China's participation. The casual reader browsing chess topic areas would be excused for thinking that some momentous China-related incidents form a substantial part of Olympiad history, but actually, there's so little text and so many statistics, I doubt whether anyone would be any the wiser upon further exploration. An encyclopedia must remain informative, even-handed and proportionate in its selection of material. In coming together, it will also benefit from following a broadly agreed direction, such as is contained in the Wiki-project Chess pages. I would however compliment the user on their unquestionable flair for editing and presentation and hope they can work with us on some of the many identified Chess projects, as they seem to have started doing already. Brittle heaven (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is raw source material, without much context or text to make it more than a collection of results. This type of information is more Wikisource than Wikipedia material, so I will have to agree with Bubba who says delete. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:38, 11 January 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.