Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of celebrity judoka


 * 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, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

List of celebrity judoka

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

At the very least the title has got to change. But to a large extent, this is also original research and is a list with no clear rule for membership Who is a celebrity? Who is famous? How much judo experience do you need to have to qualify for the list? The list is fairly well referenced but still, it's a list with potentially a gazillion names and hardly seems to be worthy of an encyclopedia. Pichpich (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete &mdash; the intersection of "celebrity" and "does Judo" seems a indiscriminate trivial matter with very little encyclopedic merit. --Haemo (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The "potentially endless" (okay, maybe "gazillion" is a finite number) argument is never very persuasive. An odd topic, maybe, but it's well-sourced, and it does provide some discriminating information.  Who knew that Yeltsin and Trudeau practiced judo?  I agree with nom that the title has got to change.  "Celebrity Judoka" doesn't work.  I understand, persons who are well known for something other than their judo skills are on the list, but Celebrity Judo sounds like a bad TV show (visions of Charles Nelson Reilly flipping Brett Somers to the mat).  And I get it, you judo enthusiasts refer to each other as "judoka".  The rest of us don't know what the hell you're talking about.  Mandsford (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ok, never mind the gazillion argument but come on, the list currently includes Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt's son... What is he? 5 years old? The problem is that the choice is to either say "let's put down every name for which we have a reference saying that person X (who has a bio on wiki) is a judoka". Theoretically, I suppose that's possible although we all know how absurdly useless (not to mention uninteresting) such a list would be. Just applying this criterion to Japanese people on wikipedia would easily put a hundred names in there (and that's a conservative estimate). The alternative is what is currently taking shape there: a haphazard list of trivia about people whose face appears periodically in tabloids. It's trivial information and should be included in the respective biographies if it has any significance. It also most definitely constitutes original research. Pichpich (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The relevance of the five year old practising judo is is not in the child, but in that that sport was chosen by well known celebrity parents (Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt). It looks a little strange to have the five-year old in the entry; I originally had it under "Angela Jolie and Brad Pitt" with the explanation that it was actually their son involved but it didn't seem a proper way to form the list. --David Broadfoot (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that some of the names don't belong here.  I guess I go by the theory that if the topic itself isn't completely inappropriate, then the laissez-faire system of Wikipedia eventually takes care of the problems with content.  Another editor would come along eventually and take out silly references to Angela and Brad's child for the same reasons.  (In fact, I'll do that now, and I'll be it doesn't get placed back in the article).  I don't agree that it's trivial, since there is a certain amount of self-discipline that goes with judo.  Finally, this could be sourced, even if it's not sourced now.  Mandsford (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Which, I suppose, is my point: if it's not trivial, then it belongs in the person's bio. If it's trivial (e.g. Simon freakin' Le Bon) then it doesn't belong period. This is not unlike a list of famous people practising Yoga. Wikipedia is not a tabloid and it's certainly not an aggregate of tabloids or human interests pieces. Pichpich (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Re your "Simon freakin' Le Bon" job... why is that trivial? He has a fairly substantial Wikipedia entry; he and his celebrity wife both practice regularly at a very prestigious and well-regarded dojo in London (the Budokwai), and an article in the Telegraph was devoted to that fact, along with his fellow practitioners, William Hague and Kylie Minogue. Ahhhh... Kylie, I forgot to add the singing budgie to the list! --David Broadfoot (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The system works! Checking the reference, I noted that it said that Kylie "has had lessons" at the Budokwai. That is why I didn't include her on the list (not a strong enough association.) Same reason I deleted Mel Gibson off the BJJ list. Even though they are both fellow Australians. --David Broadfoot (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In many cases, it is in the person's bio. But it doesn't have to be in their bio to merit inclusion here because there may be to many more significant in the bio. Also, it may simply be a case of someone not getting around to including it in the main bio, where it in many cases night be included with consensus. There is a whole section on it in Putin's bio for example. As to your last comment, every bio is a human interest piece! --David Broadfoot (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete This is non encyclopedia, its a list of a trivial matter. The criteria for inclusion are vague and this list is just silly as a whole  RogueNinja talk  15:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep
 * 1) "At the very least the title has got to change." - what do you suggest?
 * 2) "But to a large extent, this is also original research" - I think it's mostly referenced, so it's not OR. It's a very new page so we haven't had time to improve the article with further references yet. Lists are definitely allowed on Wikipedia, and if you did not allow lists that were original in nature (what you are calling "original research here), then there would be very few lists allowed as lists are copyrighted (for example, telephone directories are copyrighted as a collection of data.) Therefore it would not be possible to obtain a list of anything from another source; unlike text, which can be sourced and rewritten, lists are copyright in themselves and therefore could not be used.
 * 3) "and is a list with no clear rule for membership Who is a celebrity? Who is famous?" consensus will take care of that.
 * 4) "How much judo experience do you need to have to qualify for the list?" Again, consensus will take care of that. For example, I removed Mel Gibson's entry from List of Celebrity Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu practitioners due to lack of experience and commitment to that sport.
 * 5) "The list is fairly well referenced but still, it's a list with potentially a gazillion names" You could use that same argument to nominate for deletion all articles on Wikipedia - they all have the potential to grow to a gazillion words. Anyway, it won't happen. No-one has any interest in having an overly long list. As the list grows, less famous practitioners and/or those with less judo experience would be removed.
 * 6) "and hardly seems to be worthy of an encyclopedia" Less worthy than List of Pokémon characters for example? Note that List of Celebrity Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu practitioners is a similar list that was also nominated for deletion and the nomination failed. There are numerous other similar lists of celebrity whatevers, and other lists that you might call OR but bring together well-sourced information into a cohesive whole. Whether or not it seems worthy is very much a matter of personal taste, of more interest to those who are interested in celebrities, and those who study judo (as is the entire judo article.)   --David Broadfoot (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Jiu-Jitsu list was never the object of a debate at articles for deletion and I doubt it would survive. There is actually ample precedent for deleting these lists. See for instance Articles for deletion/List of left handed people, Articles for deletion/List of famous bearded people, Articles for deletion/List of famous members of Mensa (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/List of men famous for being well endowed, Articles for deletion/List of famous smokers (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/List of iconic drinkers, Articles for deletion/List of famous people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. I'm not a big fan of all the Pokemon stuff on the wiki but there are a few good points for it. One is that full lists of Pokemon can be created: it's clear what qualifies as a Pokemon character. There's a large but not unreasonably large number of them and the list on-wiki serves as a browsing tool for Pokemon-minded people. A place where it's easy to complete your understanding of Pokemon, if you so wish. This list does not help you understand judo. It's original research because by putting a name on it, you declare this or that person to be famous or noteworthy. Even if this is done by consensus, this is still the point of view of the consensus. Similarly, you're making a judgement call on Mel Gibson's commitment to Jiu-Jitsu by removing his name from that list. The problem is that the list is impossible to maintain without making arbitrary cut-offs for how famous/experienced/talented you have to be to make the list. It's also original research because it is an original aggregation of loose information. No such list of celebrity judoka practitioners exists (because, of course, the problems faced here would be faced by anyone). See the section in this essay about list membership criteria. Celebrity is inherently biased. See also this important part of WP:NOT: Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article. Pichpich (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "The Jiu-Jitsu list was never the object of a debate at articles for deletion" - it must have been a less formal deletion motion; the deletion motion is referred to on the talk page for that article.
 * ''"There is actually ample precedent for deleting these lists. See for instance ..."' Those lists are not comparable. The effort and dedication required to be a drinker in no way compares to that required to be a judoka (W.C. Fields may be an exception!).
 * "One is that full lists of Pokemon can be created: it's clear what qualifies as a Pokemon character. There's a large but not unreasonably large number of them ..." By analogy, most articles on Wikipedia do not belong there because it is not clear which cited facts belong in the article, and which don't.
 * "This list does not help you understand judo." Well, the title of the page is not "Judo", and it does help people understand something about Judo.
 * "It's original research because..." All those arguments apply to just about every sentence in every Wikipedia article, and many other lists - that; not what OR means. You have also just made an argument against consensus on Wikipedia.
 * "No such list of celebrity judoka practitioners exists (because, of course, the problems faced here would be faced by anyone)." If I started a page called Celebrity Immigrants to the USA, you could make an identical argument about it, but I could point to such a list here. That list is just as impossible to create as the Celebrity Judoka list, yet it nonetheless exists (outside Wikipedia, on a reputable site.) Does it help you understand immigration? And you ignored my argument that if such a list existed, we would not be able to use it in Wikipedia. Catch-22!
 * "See the section in this essay about list membership criteria. "Celebrity" is inherently biased." "Celebrity" is defined in Wikipedia and in Wiktionary. Many terms are biased and just about every definition lacks concreteness, however, we still manage to use the language. List of atheists has been peer-reviewed and given B-Class status, yet they grapple with the same "bias" issue of what "notable" means. (Also, does it help you understand atheism?)
 * "See also this important part of WP:NOT: Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article." How is that relevant to the Celebrity Judo article? --David Broadfoot (talk) 08:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment My advice would be to rename this "Notable persons who practiced judo"; describe it at the beginning as a list of persons who are well-known for other achievements, but who practiced judo; try to link a source to as many of the names as possible to clear up O.R. objections.
 * At he risk of not practicing what I preach, I'll add that whether you're arguing for a keep or delete, it's always good practice to avoid the temptation to go long on arguments. Whether it's a point-by-point rebuttal, or a long opening statement that anticipates every possible response, it inevitably backfires.  Again, I think this is a worthwhile topic, the sourcing is good so far, and each article should be judged on its merits, not on "precedents" for similar lists that were kept or deleted.  Mandsford (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks... I can rename it to something like that. I never liked the "celebrity" word anyway (I was just trying to be consistent with what others had done), as some of the notable people on the list are not what one would normally call "celebrities". "List of notable people who have learned judo" perhaps?  --David Broadfoot (talk) 12:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.   — RogueNinja talk  09:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and re-title per comments. Notable subject seems well sourced, and only to include people with articles, two good ways to keep any list from getting out of hand. --Nate1481(t/c) 09:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename. JJL (talk) 19:22, 4 February 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.