Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nations finishing at the top of the medals tables at the Summer Olympic Games


 * 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.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 04:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

List of nations finishing at the top of the medals tables at the Summer Olympic Games

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * (added to nom for same reasons 16:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC))

This article exists as content fork because of a dispute over the inclusion of this table on the Summer Olympic Games article. Some editors feel that there is undue weight given to these rankings by the inclusion of this table, especially when there is some controversy about who is "first" (see the recent creation of Olympic medal table for one response to that). Also note that we also have this information listed on a per-Games basis (e.g. 2008 Summer Olympics medal table), so I question the need to present this information in an alternate format (with an arbitrary cutoff (WP:NPOV) of "fourth place"). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Added the similar Winter Games list to this nom. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Strong Delete As per nom. Perakhantu (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per reasons provided in the nom. This is not how we solve disputes and there is room in Summer Olympic Games for this table so that is also not a reason to create this fork. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify a point here; the relevance of these tables is beyond the scope of an AfD debate. The articles should be judged on their own merits and as such they fail utterly per WP:CFORK. Everything else is a content dispute that should be resolved on the relevant talk pages. I notice these were created without prior agreement among the involved editors which further supports the WP:CFORK argument in the nom. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I created a separate article as even some people in favour of the table felt that it did not necessarily belong in the main article about the Summer Olympics. Also, when asked, nobody seemed to object to it's inclusion as a stand alone article.  I am new to all this though, so sorry if I'm not following the usual conventions or allowing adequate time for people to respond to discussions. Lukens (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. It was a slow moving discussion and though I will assume good faith here there was no consensus that the tables should be forked. You guys need to work this out on the relevant talk pages instead. Forking and having the debate here instead isn't the way to go. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I supported the removal of the table from Summer Olympic Games and I don't think it needs inclusion in wikipedia as a seperate article either. Basement12 (T.C) 16:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, fails WP:SYNTH . --Tone 16:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, it's utterly useless (and frankly will just invite the 'Count by gold!' 'NO! Count by total!' edit-warring that's already been going on). Prince of Canadat 16:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep (changing vote - see below) I feel this article is better suited to inclusion as a separate article, as it should lessen any undue weight it gives to medal tables rankings when included in the main Summer Olympic Games article. I don't think the fact that this information exists in separate tables means it should not also be included here in summarised form - it would take a long time to look at the individual medal tables so as to piece together this information if it was something you were interested in seeing. Many of the arguments given in the past for deleting the article, and deleting it from the Summer Olympic Games article could also be used as arguments for deleting the individual medals tables, or other summaries of the data, such as the All-time Olympic Games medal table article.  The IOC may not officially recognise the medal tables; however, I suspect that the vast majority of people who have an interest in the Olympic games also have an interest in medal tables positions.  I feel this article adds value, it is something I assumed would be included on wikipedia, and I searched for it for a long time - I did eventually find it, but the next time I wanted to check it, I found it had been deleted again.  I agree that '4th' is an odd cut off point, and would be more than happy to see this changed.  Also, to prevent any debate over the ordering of nations, I would be happy to see the article include tables based on both methods for ordering (gold first, or total medals first).  Lukens (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete OK, I'm changing my vote to delete (for now) so that we can try and gain consensus about what should eventually happen to this list here - Lukens (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete both per nomination. Nirvana888 (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This article is harmless, factual, and informative. I myself have at times wanted a table of information just like it. As for why we need it when the same information exists on a per-game basis: What if a reader wants to know who got the most medals in every game? It's much easier for them to consult one or two articles than it is for them to consult dozens and put together the information themselves. The cut-off at the top four nations is arbitrary, but it seems to me that it's just to make the table easier to read. Including every NOC for every game would make the page slow to load and difficult to navigate. I don't think it violates NPOV. Also, I don't believe it violates WP:SYNTH, because it doesn't draw any new conclusions from the material. There's no original argument here. It's just arranging readily available information in a table. Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My nomination does not mention WP:SYNTH at all. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Other comments do though. Lukens (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Totally agreed with Orange Tuesday. The article is harmless, informative, its content is not controversial as the rules for listing the nations are clear, and gives a "summary" of the top sport-nations, something like a list of winning teams in other sport-related articles. - Sthenel (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But "other sport-related article" typically include that information within the main article, not as a content fork. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That is because they have official "winners"; I feel that the fact that the medals tables are unofficial is a good reason for not including this in the main article (where it would be comparable to other "winners" tables for other sporting contests), but is not a good reason for excluding it all together. I think context is important here, and having it as a separate article removes the undue weight given to the list; I don't view this as forking to avoid the debate, but forking for a more suitable context. Also, other games (Pan American Games, Commonwealth Games) include overall medal tables in the main article, yet, for the Olympics, this is included as a separate article, so it could also be argued that it is just following the example set by that article. Lukens (talk) 12:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The medal table is included as a seperate article mostly due to issues surrounding page length. Basement12 (T.C) 12:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is existing information, it is of great interest (despite the IOC's wishes) and is just the kind of article I would expect in an encyclopedia. If you must, include the IOC comment as a disclaimer. Personally I would like to go further and see comment on the rise and fall of the Soviet block, the rise of China, the response of countries to their 'poor' showing, the benefit of 'home advantage'... but this is right into Original Research territory (and all probably anathema to the IOC!). As for edit wars, if someone wants to make a "most medals" table, please go ahead... Wikipete  20:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This AFD discussion seems to be turning into a debate about whether or not the content is useful, which really ought to be kept at Talk:Summer Olympic Games where it started. My nomination of this article for deletion was because I object to the creation of the article as a content fork to bypass that discussion.  That reason alone should be the reason for considering whether this should be deleted or not.  As that guideline says, both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies.  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the usefulness of the information is entirely relevant to this discussion, and I think it would be too narrow of us to only focus on the Content Forking rule. If the consensus of this AFD is to delete the page, then what happens to the information? Will it get remerged into the Summer Olympics article, or will it just disappear? I'm no Wikipedia bureaucracy expert, but my instinct is that it will just disappear, and the fact that it was deleted will make it difficult for it to be added again. If people find these pages useful, then this is a problem. Look, perhaps Lukens was too hasty in the creation of these pages, but just deleting them isn't going to help resolve the dispute. All the parties involved in this should come to a consensus over whether or not the information is useful and whether or not it deserves its own page. Then we can decide whether or not to delete the pages. That would be a more constructive approach than preempting that consensus and deleting these articles based on a rules violation. Orange Tuesday (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The discussion should continue at Talk:Summer Olympic Games to find consensus. The page history of that article shows versions that had these tables, so content does not "disappear".  Also, any administrator can move content from a deleted contribution into user space (for example), to help advance development, if that is necessary.  Again, the right place to find consensus on this material is where the discussion started, not in an AFD discussion of an ill-conceived fork. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete article is subject to POV and all information already exists in relevant medal table articles. If consensus is to keep, the two lists should be merged into one.   Reywas92 Talk  21:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Content fork of all the individual articles on the Olympic games, such as Athletics at the 2008 Summer Olympics, etc. Subject to POV as well, which is just not a good combination. Tavix (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. IOC medal tables are unofficial rankings and are never used for declaring a "winner" of any Olympics.  This article pushes the notion that that the listed countries "won" their respective Olympics.  Thus, it gives undue weight to a personal/minority opinion.  P.S., for those stressing to keep the article, arguments that the topic is interesting should be avoided per WP:ILIKEIT. --Madchester (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment We seem to have got into a bit of a mess here (sorry, probably my fault for creating this as a separate article prematurely); however, I'm a little unsure as to what the next step should be. If this article is deleted, then we are back to square one, and back to trying to gain consensus as to whether this should be included in the main Summer Olympics article.  Even I feel it probably shouldn't, as I feel in that context, it possibly does give undue weight to the idea of nations "winning" games (something I feel it does not do as a separate article).  The difficulty is, that we'd be trying to gain consensus on several things at the same time, a) should it be included in the main article?, b) should it be included as a separate article?, c) should it be included at all?.  Could someone with more experience in these areas please suggest the best steps forward to get these questions resolved with the consensus of the community?  Also, I don't think it puts across a personal/minority point of view, or give undue weight, to the idea of finishing at the top of medals tables than any of the individual medal tables do.  I also feel that the fact that the IOC do officially recognise the tables is not a reason to delete this article, and if it is, then it is also reason enough to delete all other Olympic medals tables and mentions of rankings, as well as other synth articles such as All-time Olympic Games medal table (which could be argued should be deleted for many of the reasons that these articles are).  In the mean time I will copy the articles to my user space in order to maintain them. Lukens (talk) 08:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well yes, you will be back to where you started because there was no consensus yet. This is really beyond the scope of an AfD though. There is no way around gaining consensus before you post or re-post disputed content. Consensus wins over some arbitrary deadline for when debates should be over and AfD is not the venue to continue that debate. The next steps in dispute resolution aren't really relevant yet but you are of course free to create a request for comments. Again, that is really not relevant to this debate though. EconomicsGuy (talk) 09:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My main concern is about how consensus can be gained when there are multiple options on which consensus is needed to be gained. Any advise on how to do this would be appreciated - does anyone have experience of similar situations?.  I understand that AfD is not the place for such debate, but surely there is no harm in discussing here what steps should be taken next.  It's all well and good saying the discussion should continue on the original talk page, but I'm not sure what format this should take in order to best gain consensus as to what should happen to this table a) Keep in main article, b) Have as separate article, c) loose all together (ignoring the question as to whether it should be a single article along with the Winter Olympics list).  A poll could take place in the talk page, but my understanding is that polling is a practice that is discouraged.  Also, people may feel strongly that it should not be in the main article, but not object so much to it being in it's own article, but their preference would be for it being deleted; or strongly that it should be in the main article, not mind it being in it's own article, and strongly against complete deletion - obviously such opinions can't really be expressed in a poll, and it will also be difficult to tell at all when consensus is reached. Basically I'm requesting advise on how we can go about getting consensus on what should happen to the lists, I understand that debate should not happen here, but don't want us to be stuck in limbo due to no clear plan on gaining consensus. Lukens (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The way to do this is to have the debate about having these as single articles or not here and then have the debate about including it in the main article or not on the talk page of the main article. Very little of what is being said here adresses the concerns in the nom which are that these two articles were created prematurely as inappropriate forks to reintroduce disputed content. That is what is being debated here, the rest belongs on the article talk page. To see how to proceed from there if no consensus can be reached please read WP:DR, specifically the part about creating a request for comments. We do not disregard consensus in favor of quick solutions. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that is the solution. If it is felt that it was forked prematurely, then surely there must have existed a way to gain consensus prior to forking, and so the fork should be deleted, and consensus should be gained as if the fork had never existed.  Just because consensus hadn't been reached to fork it, that doesn't mean it would never have been reached.  I'm happy to agree that it was forked prematurely, and that more discussion was needed; however, I still feel that it should, eventually, exist as its own article.  So, by your suggested solution, I would still vote to keep it, even though I agree that it was probably forked without adequate consensus. Lukens (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I've started an attempt at gaining consensus, without things getting too confused. No doubt I'm again not doing things the way they should be done on wikipedia, but have become impatient at waiting for a better suggestion: see here - Lukens (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This is redundent (spelling?) to All-time Olympic Games medal table, and it's biased toward the idea that the total medal count determines being at the top. If you want to see the most total medals, just go to the alltime total page and sort.  No reason to have such an article.  Nyttend (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The All-time Olympic medal table show something completely different. You can't see which nations finished at the top of the tables at individual games from that table.  As you suggest, it is the ideal table to see which nations have won the most total medals, but that is not at all what this list shows. Lukens (talk) 08:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete undue weight and not useful as an encycloedia article.SYSS Mouse (talk) 04:22, 6 September 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.