Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Union at the 2004 Summer Olympics

European Union at the 2004 Summer Olympics
European Union at the 2004 Summer Olympics  This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep

VfD debate
Originally, this article was nominated and hotly debated in August. During voting, the article was rewritten at least twice. Additionally, many, many nonce accounts emerged to vote "keep." At the end of the debate, the total was roughly 35 delete and 18 keep. The article was kept. The decision to keep has been challenged. Therefore, this is a renomination, with a request that voters please vote only once, with only one account, and only with delete or keep. Geogre 00:11, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Hope I don't get accused of sockpuppetry... ugen64 01:03, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Since my nomination was procedural to answer user questions, it had no vote implied. For what it's worth, I still vote delete. Geogre 01:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - SimonP 02:17, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Livajo 02:36, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's still abuse of statistics.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 03:07, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, same reason as last time. &mdash;Stormie 03:21, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, as previous. Lacrimosus 04:13, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Expand to give complete picture. First, I'm not entirely sure what the point of this article is, but whatever it is it's sided and incomplete. ClockworkTroll 06:54, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. -Vina 07:04, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. What are the motives of this harassment? Why this idea of eluding discussion now? --Pgreenfinch 07:26, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Please note that the August VfD discussion, plus user comments after the article was kept and the comment of the admin who kept it, can be consulted here: Votes for deletion/European Union Olympic medals count for 2004.--Bishonen 12:26, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article is verifiable and may be of interest to someone. Warofdreams 12:38, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. As previous. Misleading and flawed statistics. My vote could change to abstain if the title was changed (the EU didn't compete in the Olympics) and if the final medal tally was also deleted, as an EU-wide NOC would not get those results and therefore having a final medal tally is inviting a comparison which would in the end be false. Impi 13:27, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is an embarassing POV attempt to insinuate without arguing the extremely high caliber of Olympic athletics from EU countries at the 2004 Summer Olympics. But if EU had competed as a separate entity, many of these athletes would not have been on the very much smaller EU Olympic team. Similarly, if UK had competed as four separate countries, those countries together could have fielded up to four times the number of contestants, some (perhaps many) of whom would certainly have earned medals, boosting the total medals for UK as a whole. There's no point to this article other than EU chavinism by EU boosters. Yet presenting these figures out of context actually suggests that EU results don't measure up, otherwise why would someone present them in a way that appears intended to mislead?. Wikipedia should not have articles pushing USAmerican chauvinism, EU chauvinism, white racial chauvinism, Birmingham chauvinism and so forth, especially with figures not in their proper context. Jallan 15:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * What is POV is that comment and what would be POV would be to suppress information under such pretence. --Pgreenfinch 17:59, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Are we going to have Association of Southeast Asian Nations at the Olympics and Organization of American States at the Olympics articles as well? --Lowellian 19:26, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * If you are interested, the counts for ASEAN and OAS are at 2004 Summer Olympics medals count by International Organization. And given the existence of *that* page I feel that this one's unnecessary. All its contents can still be seen in either the link above or the mail medal count. So, sorry, PGreenfinch, but I vote delete as I see the page being needless now. On rethinking this, I turn my vote to "abstain". Didn't notice the Romano Prodi bit. Aris Katsaris 23:52, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Have any other *what if*? Come on, you can do better, I'm sure the people here will be more interested that you state your real problem. --Pgreenfinch 21:32, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Meaningless totals, as I have argued ad nauseum before.  RickK 20:05, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you know, Rick, I understand your disappointment, but some might see nauseating reasons as a bit short for suppressing real info. --Pgreenfinch 21:32, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * You know you're on the losing side when you have to make personal attacks instead of reasoned arguments. RickK 00:55, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. This information is presented as an arbitrary intersection.  This would be better suited to a database, which would allow arbitrary queries.  An encyclopaedia (especially one that isn't paper) should be careful in choosing the most useful intersections for article topics.  Better organization means information is easier to find and maintain.  -- WOT 21:41, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Romano Prodi declaring that European Union has won Olympics (section 2) and getting rebutted by euroskeptics was a major news story in European countries. Since it has generated so much publicity there, we should cover it (with clear explanation why the count is not fair, of course). Andris 23:48, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Austin Hair 01:56, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Encyclopedic and verifiable. ElBenevolente 03:06, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Are you going to keep on submitting this page for deletion until it is finally deleted? And then, will we be able to recreate it so the cycle begins again? This is pointless. This was already discussed and the page was kept.Kevloral 03:39, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Note that above user has only contributed to this vote, both times, and a single article, Cantabria. Also note that it is, in fact, nonce accounts and sock puppets that have made this renomination necessary. Geogre 04:11, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * So what? Aren't you mixing up users and contributors, considering the huge majority of users as small obedient people that should just shut their mouth and leave you decide what food they can get or not for their meal? Are you creating your own rules and deciding they are THE wikipedia rules? I invite people to look at your VfD "advices" on your user page, about, for example, forbiding discussions. --Pgreenfinch 07:10, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. In 100 years this article will have a big historical value and it already has. bbx 09:53, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * So if we on a vague whim combined the medal tallies of say East Germany and West Germany for say, the 1960 Olympics, that would be meaningful historical information now? No, it would be misinformative and useless. There are currently a dozen odd different olympic committees throughout the EU, with European athletes competing against each other, not for the EU. *If and when* there is a single EU Olympic Committee, with a single set of selection criteria for athletes, and some centralised uniformity in training and in policy, a combined EU tally becomes in some way meaningful. Not before. Lacrimosus 02:16, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete --Conti|&#9993; 14:37, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meaningful and neutral facts with political implications. Why do you want to hide them? Ejrrjs 14:47, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It seems historically signifigant. If it's this hotly debated then I'd rather see it rewritten than outright deleted. - Lifefeed 19:06, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article says itself "The total is not representative of any official count." I could submit an article entitled "Average IQ score of populations living in countries whose names have an odd number of letters," but it would be meaningless. Or, I could submit an article entitled "Average IQ score of populations living in countries higher than 30 degrees North latitude," but it would be equally meaninless&mdash;unless it had the unstated purpose of advancing a point of view about intelligence and geographical latitude. Similarly, this article is either meaningless or advancing an unstated POV. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:19, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * All NOC results are unofficial, the Olympic charter says that the awards are given to athletes, not NOCs. Thanks for raising this point, I just gave a precision about it in the article. On the other hand, what I see as "unstated purpose" of advancing a POV like the one you mention is the will of some to destroy the info. If you follow their logic, all results by country or any grouping should be deleted. Well, what about a vfd on the main page or 2004 olympic summer results? ;-)) --Pgreenfinch 08:04, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)--
 * Delete. I'm breaking my own rule here, but for good reason.  Admins frequently have to make judgement calls as to which votes should be discounted (probable sockpuppet, anons, brand new accts), and I can't fault anyone for making a good-faith judgement call.  Still, after checking the votes and voters from last time, I think concensus had been reached to delete.  SWAdair | Talk  08:16, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * See Consensus. --Pgreenfinch 09:27, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The article is even worse now, saying: "medals are awarded to athletes and not to NOCs anyway." The thing is, NOCs are not as irrelevant as is suggested. No athlete may contest at the Games unless he/she belongs to an NOC. As such, medals are awarded to Athletes who are part of a specific NOC, and thus it is relevant. This is aside from all the issues with regard the EU being able to enter far more athletes per given event. The fact that these types of statistics have already been used by Europhiles in the media to compare the EU favourably with countries like the US and Russia, both with only one NOC each, proves my point about how the statistics are flawed and misleading. They create an impression of strength that should not exist. This has nothing to do with whether any of us like or dislike the EU, it's all about the suitability of this article for Wikipedia. For the reasons listed above (and on the previous VfD discussion) as well as due to the fact that this borders on original research, it is unsuitable and therefore deletion is in order. Impi 20:39, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * "They create an impression of strength that should not exist" seems POV to me. Nothing ad nominem from me, just that I don't see on what basis it rests. Also, keeping on the ad verem ground, but still puzzled, I don't understand the point in hiding figures, how can this be suitable for wikipedia, neither the point about europhiles as a reason to hide them. Pure mystery for me, the village idiot for sure. --Pgreenfinch 22:10, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, in short, the Olympic Games operates in term of NOCs for a reason. It allows them to regulate athletes and ensure that no country has an unfair advantage due to the structure of the system, etc. Therefore each NOC is allocated limits, including, as mentioned before, limits on the number of athletes an NOC may enter per event. Now, also as discussed in detail previously, the EU is made up of something like 25 NOCs, each of which is allowed to enter the number of athletes required by limit. Therefore, to take any event as an example, let's say each NOC is allowed three athletes in the 200m freestyle swimming event. So this means, for instance, that the US, Russia, China, Australia, South Africa and so on are all allowed only three swimmers, as are each of the EU member countries. However, when combining the medal tally of EU nations into a single amount attributed to the EU, you have a situation where the EU is being compared to countries such as the aforementioned, yet was able to enter perhaps as many as 75 athletes, as opposed to the three of other countries. Statistically, it's obvious that the EU has a far better chance in this event due to the higher number of athletes. This is what I mean by a false illusion of strength. As for "hiding figures", that's totally POV. By saying that you are implying that those of us in favour of deletion harbour some sort of anti-EU feeling. We don't, we harbour pro-Wikipedia feelings. In short, we're looking to make it as good as possible, and that includes keeping everything within the rules and getting rid of misleading, inaccurate or POV articles. Due to the misleading data on this page, in which it aims to compare a bloc made up of 25 NOCs with countries having only one NOC each, I feel it shouldn't be here. However, my vote would change to abstain if, and only if, the overall medal tally is removed and a suitable disclaimer is prominently inserted. Otherwise you invite comparison that is inaccurate, and you're bordering on original research. Impi 21:18, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Impi, I understand that you want the article to be the best possible. But, imo, to start with the concept of "false illusion of strength" would only result in POV as it implies, even if it is not what you really mean and if it is just a misformulation, "EU athletes inferiority".
 * I give facts and only facts. I'm sure you want to stick to facts also, and you are welcome, as everybody is, to add any fact and disclaimer you feel useful to the article.
 * From the beginning I adapted my wordings, and accepted editings by others, even if sometimes it led to some confusing and contradictory wordings, but I believe in co-operation, for me it is the essence of wikipedia. It is the first time I see such pounding, not on the wording, but on the existence of the information itself, after my thousands of article creation and editing in two different language. I have problem in understanding the motive of those crossfires. As all technicalities had been discussed and addressed at length without making the harassment budge, I wonder if statistical and contextual purity is the real motive af those attacks.
 * I think that in the present case, wikipedia neutrality is at stake, and that to suppress an information, which existence cannot be refuted, would be, to say the least, a dubious precedent. --Pgreenfinch 08:38, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * If the last vote was won by a hefty majority (two-thirds, in fact), why is it still here? 82.6.10.139 23:36, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Curse my inability to log in first ... Chris


 * Because VfD dispositions are made by a sysop's determination of rough consensus. Number of votes are simply a guideline that the sysop uses in determining that. There is apparently widespread suspicion that the previous vote included a significant amount of sockpuppetry. VfD is not bound by rigid rules that would make it easy game the system. It is more akin to the legal system, where a judge rules based on his own judgement and precedent. In simple cases, a competent lawyer can predict quite accurately how a judge will rule, based on "the law." In complicated cases, the ruling is the result of human group interaction and judgement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:38, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to 2004 Summer Olympics medals count by International Organization. --DMG413 19:14, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I have reordered the page's structure a bit to be a relevant hard fact right at the top. Please, the people who voted in favour of deletion, take a look at the page again to see if you feel it's now better suited for keeping. Aris Katsaris 15:24, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Tuf-Kat 22:40, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * It's reasonable of Aris to ask us to look, but I'd like to know this: if we don't feel what he hopes, do we now have to choose between a) repeating our delete votes for the pleasure of getting sneered and snapped at by Pgreenfinch again, and b) keeping quiet and getting our original delete votes count less, or not count, because the article is supposedly rewritten? The way I understood it, there was some of (b) in the sysop's determination in August. I'd appreciate an answer from someone familiar with policy. Meanwhile, just in case, here it comes again: delete. The manifest agenda of the article is still absurd, and the pretence at NPOV phrasing in it is some of the weazliest I've seen. --Bishonen 00:00, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Please, spare the ad hominem attack. As for the best policy basis I know, it is the bit about the right to imformation in the Declaration of Human rights. --Pgreenfinch 11:15, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm criticizing your debating technique. It's funny the way you can't tell the difference. --Bishonen 11:55, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, again. It's still factual, breaks out mre than the "international orgs" page, and of interest based on the media coverage. Rich Farmbrough 00:49, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, again. It's still useless and misleading. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 03:26, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pointless. If ifs and ands were pots and pans..........Moriori 03:44, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep --- The official said it, the scores are there and the drift towards the 'United States of Europe' is shaping into one of the themes of the current era. This article gives a perspective I hadn't seen before which really drives home the potential of the expanding European block...........User:A_Brit_Abroad 03:08, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, as my vote before, and make use of 2004 Summer Olympics medals count by International Organization if this "info" is desired. I am also puzzle why the previous vote failed as it had 2/3 concensus for deletion, but somehow the vote failed by decree. --kjd 11:18, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * It had roughly 2/3 consensus. That's right at the boundaries of deletion/non-deletion. Aris Katsaris 12:38, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * It gained roughly 2/3 consenus previously only by counting all newby votes, though again and again it has been stated here and on the Village Pump that such votes aren't counted. Such votes are almost always either by true sockpuppets or people specially recruited from outside only to stack a vote. The sysop who deleted also claimed to have cast a vote himself, though that doesn't show. Any sysop who decides to keep or delete on anything but an obvious case is in effect already casting a deciding vote. Fair enough. But to cast yet another vote on top of that and then to count that vote in the tally as justification should not be acceptable. Jallan 14:57, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's factual and verifiable informations, and pro and cons are listed. Alfio 16:19, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. -- J3ff 02:29, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. RadicalSubversiv E 06:25, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've stated my reasoning in great detail during the last VfD. -- Chuq 07:07, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's somewhat interesting, and it can be thought to be something that Romano Prodi said. Note that it has an objections-section too. --kooo 08:22, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)
 * Keep. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 15:31, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is time for people to get used to the fact that the European Union is something more than just an ordinary confederation. This kind of phenomenon is one way it shows. --oswd 17:05, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it is not surprising that new realities take time to get acclimated, be they the existence of the EU as a real community of people, or that it has first-rate athletes. Every new fact thar changes previously widely admited concepts has problems crossing the critical threshold of scepticism. It is confronted to a barrage of "rationalizations", often based on technicalities. People are just sincere in their gut's opposition to the realities of world changes. It is hard for them to see that resistance to change, anchoring or cognitive dissonance are at play, often unconsciously. But wikipedia, which mission is to make knowledge accessible to everybody, has to overcome that, and put reality above individual tenets or biases, however explainable, sincere and respectable they can be. --Pgreenfinch 06:51, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The content might be controversial, but can be presented as purely factual, and from a political, cultural and historical perspectives, it seems truly relevant to me. --Edcolins 19:35, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge matter into Sport in the European Union (if it is not already done), and delete the article with such a title. --Edcolins 20:38, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. - If this stays then a Nato at the 2004 summer olympics is just as applicable an entry and something I'll be creating. Chuck F
 * I agree with you but please Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:04, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Head of NATO hasn't proposed anything such as merging national teams, right? A "NATO at the 2004 summer olympics" article would have no factual value. --Edcolins 19:46, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Still irrelevant. The fact is that neither NATO nor the EU compete under a single NOC, and thus a medal tally is misleading an has no factual value for either of them. Prodi's comments would only be suitable under a page called something like "proposal for the EU's member nations to compete under a single NOC at future Olympic Games" (clumsy, but you get the idea). The fact remains that the EU did not compete as a single NOC at the 2004 Games, and therefore to tally their medal results as if they did is wrong. This once again has nothing to do with whether we like or dislike the EU. I mean, Oswd for instance has the total wrong idea, seeming to think the vote to delete is over members' dislike of the EU. That's not the issue, and in fact quite a few EU supporters are voting Delete. The idea is to put your personal beliefs/opinions aside and consider this purely in terms of the Wikipedia rules and conventions. Impi 20:15, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * You are right. I must agree with you that the title stinks. See above for my vote now. --Edcolins 20:38, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * A borderline case, but I tend towards delete. -- Mike Rosoft 19:57, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * delete. there is no EU team. dont create one --Jiang' 19:56, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmm, sorry, don't see the point, what is the relation with giving info about the EU area athletes performance? --Pgreenfinch 21:05, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful information & factual. --*drew 12:46, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)