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


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was No Consensus, article kept. N (t/c) 16:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

European Union member states at the 2004 Summer Olympics
I have already added "member states" to the title. The EU did not compete at the 2004 Summer Olympics, and this is only such article for an entity which did not compete. The only reason to create this was to support the idea that it should do so, which is a propaganda aim which cannot be made neutral through the phrasing of the article. For non-propaganda purposes this article is of no more relevance than Countries beginning with the letter G at the 2004 Summer Olympics, and much less relevance than Europe at the 2004 Summer Olympics or Africa at the 2004 Summer Olympics. Before voting, please consider whether you would support such articles for NAFTA, ASEAN, or such entities in your part of the world. Delete Osomec 19:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a fantasy league. And Canada would sweep the Commonwealth Winter Games if there were such an event, but there isn't. Ground Zero | t 19:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * perhaps there should be a Commonwealth Winter Games - but that is a separate debate! Rhyddfrydol 22:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The simple listing of member states is not particularly useful and redundant with (presumably) many other articles. The interpretation required to reach the first bullet point of conclusions is fairly minimal, but relies on assumptions like each athlete still training in the same way, still being funded etc etc. The second bullet is pure speculation. Thus, all the non-repetitive material in the article is original research, and should go per WP:NOR. -Splash 22:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - For no more reason than I think it's quite interesting. Comparing it to a fictional article entitled Countries beginning with the letter G at the 2004 Summer Olympics is silly, IMO. if the Countries beginning with the letter G had a parliament and were politically related, I could see your point. Particularly if the head of the CBWTLG alliance made comments to do with a united team. I also don't believe the page supports the EU should enter a single team - I don't believe they should. And I, personally, would support a similar page to do with Africa at the Olympics. 2004 Summer Olympics medals count by International Organization states that as a united force the African Union won 8 medals, and I believe an article about the African nations at the Olympics could expand that information. Halo 22:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's also worth noting that this is the 3rd VFD for this very page, previous discussions are at Votes_for_deletion/European_Union_Olympic_medals_count_for_2004 and Votes_for_deletion/European_Union_at_the_2004_Summer_Olympics when keep was decided one time, and the proper process wasn't followed the other. The nominator failed to add the VFD notice correctly (bottom of page instead of the top) which has now been corrected by myself Halo 22:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep this interesting material, no reason to delete. Possibly rename or reorganize if a better title is suggested. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:46, 2005 August 31 (UTC)
 * Keep. Why this witch hunting? --Pgreenfinch 07:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, No original research. It may well be interesting, but it's someone's original work and speculation, and is very much opposed by Wikipedia policy. Proto t c 09:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * ??? Sorry, what original research and speculation? The figures are real and publicly available. --Pgreenfinch 14:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Like I said above it relys on assumptions for a start, so doesn't have such a strong basis in fact as it might appear. The second bullet point is entirely speculative &mdash; there's no evidenciary justification, other than intuition, for its contents. We are presented with someone's reasoning, and that doesn't clear the factual threshold, or the WP:NOR threshold. -Splash 14:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. EU has nothing to do with the Olympics. No need to have articles on this sampling. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article at 2004 Summer Olympics medals count by International Organization should be sufficient for this topic. &#151;  Eoghanacht  talk 14:19, 2005 August 31 (UTC)
 * Keep, this page is not speculation, but covers an actual news item. Martg76 15:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Which news item is that? We already have 2004 Summer Olympics medals count by International Organization remember. -Splash 16:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * So you find it consistent with that article. So why deleting an article that gives details ? Useful info, no? Really,I don't understand your point and would like to know what are the *real* motives for deletion, behind the rationalizations. --Pgreenfinch 06:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge. I'm not sure with what, but it seems like people really are interested in odd groupings of countries at Olympic games, like by continent, or language group, so I don't object to the list, but it definitely does not merit it's own article. Peter Grey 16:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Perhaps there should be a general listing of all the countries which took part in Athens. However those which are member states of the EU is an irrelevance - technically all nations are equal at the Olympic Games.  Rhyddfrydol 22:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Question - were any EU member nations not represented at the 2004 Summer Olympics - if all the EU member states were at Athens - why not simply have a list of all EU members on an EU page. Therefore as per my previous entry delete Rhyddfrydol 22:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Er... isn't that what this is, fundamentally? Rich Farmbrough 16:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, OR. Zoe 06:36, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The existence of this article is inherently POV as per nominator; 2004 Summer Olympics medals count by International Organization covers the factual content already.  The number of medals actually won by the EU member nations is not original research, but presenting that information as though it meant "EU citizens are the world's greatest athletes" is POV.  --Metropolitan90 07:20, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, suppressing an article that gives the pros and cons of that statement, made officially btw, would be POV and anti-encyclopedic. --Pgreenfinch 12:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * ' Merge' with Sports in the European Union, the EU is often used when comparisons are being made between the members, and I think the information is quite interesting, the data is readily available and not original research, Prodi has himself commented on it, I do not think it's pushing a POV that either the EU is one unified country or that it was represented at the 2004 olympics, nor do I think that it's pushing a POV that the EU has the greatest atheletes. -- Joolz 14:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Changed to keep. -- Joolz 00:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nothing wrong with this, and the article doesn't give the misleading impression that there is an EU team of some kind. It's a valid topic, and looking through the article I don't see any POV problems. &mdash; Trilobite 14:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename and develop. The proposal by Romano Prodi was real. The controversy in (mainly UK) papers at the time was real. The medal counts are real. This subject deserves an article - but perhaps with a different title. How about something like "EU and the Olympics" or "Proposals for an EU Olympics team". This could then give the medal results of EU member states at past games, along with a treatment of arguments against the proposals. Seabhcán 15:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC) PS. The Spanish and French Wikipedias have similar articles. PPS. The IOC "does not officially recognize national medal totals" - so ANY medal total information are technically invalid - or put another way - this page is as valid as any other.
 * What he said (keep). — Ливай | Ⓣ 16:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have already discussed this and there are no new reasons to overrule the previous decision. Ejrrjs | What? 16:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pointless. Neutralitytalk 16:43, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Do we have a table of total historical medals by country? Rich Farmbrough 16:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * By the way according to policy "Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data. " From this POV it's not OR. Rich Farmbrough 00:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, again. ElBenevolente 17:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The political background to the issue (Romano Prodi's comments) clinch this one for me, I don't see why it should be deleted, and don't believe it to be POV. If it is decided that it doesn't merit its own page, I think the information should be merged with 2004 Summer Olympics medals count by International Organization. David 5000 17:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, again. Agree with points made by Trilobite and others. Warofdreams 18:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, the articles is not pointless, is reasonably balanced and has an in-depth discussion. It has already survived a previous VfD. Alfio 21:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The information provided justifies the need to have its own article. However, I don't think other int. organisations should have this kind of article. *drew 23:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep again, the third time is it now? I think that the Romano Prodi's comments made this article to be started, an event in international news in 2004. —kooo 23:57, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Articles which have already been submitted to VfD and determined to be kept should not be resubmitted. VfD is already numerously abused without this kind of nonsense occuring. --Oldak Quill 12:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. That it survived VfD, and this is AfD, doesn't mean that it can be re-nominated. :-) James F. (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not relevant. EU doesn't compete as a single entity. Sounds like POV EU propaganda to me. Mariano (t/c) 07:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Does no harm. Dmn  € &#1332;&#1396;&#1398; 14:00, 5 September 2005 (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.