Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juggling world records


 * 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. I teetered between 'keep' and 'no consensus' as a) a significant contribution to the original nomination had been fixed by the end of the AFD period and b) both outright Delete opinions are based on the notion that this is trivial information indiscriminately organized, neither of which is the case. However, concerns about sourcing are legitimate as the three indicated sources are data repositories good for verifiability but not really well suited for establishing notability of individual entries or the topic as a whole. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 03:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Juggling world records

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Disaster of a page. Seems to be an indiscriminate list, almost entirely unsourced, or "personal claims". I guess the page could be cleaned up, but there'd be very little left. Oli Filth 19:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT. Guinness World Records has a section on juggling, and they, too, enforce a standard of notability (not the same as ours, but it counts). I believe Wikipedia should have an article on this subject. Shalom Hello 20:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Is wiki going to be a mirror for Guiness now? This kind of stuff is what Guiness World Records themselves are for, not here.  Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Tendancer 20:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nominator. Even if this had sources it would fail WP:FIVE as trivial information.  Any records of note can be mentioned in the juggling article instead. Burntsauce 20:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hesitant Keep. I agree that this article is tending toward being a repository of trivial information, but at least in the juggling world the notability of these records is very relevant.  Now that the "personal claim" records have been eliminated, and the persistent spammer has been blocked, I think that the page is in much better condition.  I agree with Shalom--let's leave the article, but keep an eye out for trivial additions and work towards making the article more encyclopedic.  Regards, Rahzel 22:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral: I removed all of the "personal claims" and records "without publicly available evidence." However it still remains a list of records which seem to be mostly posted on one website.  So while it may not be as bad as it was before, I'd still be hesitant to keep it. Fightindaman 00:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to wikisource. I think these sort of collection of records/statistics are more appropriate for there, in my opinion Corpx 04:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, it is not trivial for people wanting to know about juggling. Guiness is a primary source. This content isnt appropriate for Wikisource, as it isnt a single "work". John Vandenberg 01:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 01:29, 5 September 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.