Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of successful English Channel swimmers


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

List of successful English Channel swimmers

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article was created a year ago (under the title English Channel swimmers; it was just moved to the current title today) and has, since its creation, consisted entirely of a table listing ten people. The problem is that this is just the first ten people to swim the English Channel, out of over 800 successful swimmers according to the reference cited here, and English Channel (which details several of the more notable crossings) indicates the number of successful swimmers actually totaled nearly 1,000 by 2005. So what we have is a page that lists likely fewer than 1% of what it should, and nobody has shown any interest over the past year in expanding it, and if someone did spend hours copying the full list of successful swimmers, we'd have a table listing a thousand people, of which a small handful might not be completely obscure. I don't see the value in any of that, but my prod was removed. (No objection if someone wanted to merge the list of the first ten swimmers into the English Channel article, though.) Propaniac (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep & merge in content from English Channel. I declined this prod as this appears a reasonably well-defined list which may well be of interest. There's no reason why it should list all swims, just the more notable ones -- there is an disproportionately long and detailed section in English Channel which details various records associated with these swims, and could be merged into the list if a comments column were added. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No reason except for the fact that the title (which you chose) is "List of successful swimmers" not "List of notable swimmers." These are not the same thing. Propaniac (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a silent "notable" in most article titles, and before you raised this AfD I did suggest that you could move it again to the title of your choice, if you saw fit. The fact that the title needs tweaking or the contents better defining don't seem to me good reasons to delete perfectly adequate content. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I prodded the article because I do not believe Wikipedia should have a list of every person who has swum the English Channel, and I do not believe we should present content about a few swimmers in a way that suggests they encompass that entire list. (I suggested multiple times, including in this AFD, that the existing content could be relocated to an accurate heading.) I started the AFD because your misleading words and actions indicated to me that you disagreed with those beliefs. Since it seems we do in fact agree on those two facts, and nobody else has disputed them, I withdraw this nomination and invite any uninvolved party to close the discussion. (I have also started a discussion at Talk:List of successful English Channel swimmers in hopes of establishing criteria for which swimmers should be listed here, if not all of them.) Propaniac (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm very surprised that we apparently have no article about the history of people swimming across the English Channel, since that's been something that people have aspired to, and continue to, somewhat like climbing Mount Everest or going to the North Pole. Even an article about the first crossings of the English Channel, by swimming and by air and, more recently, by tunnel, is notably absent.  Might as well redirect to English Channel until someone wants to write an article, but as Espresso notes, the section there is disproportionately long.  Considering the historical and strategic significance of the English Channel, I hate to see it become a repository for sports trivia.  Mandsford 15:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, definitely a topic of interest, just requires expansion to demonstrate the notability of the achievement. Definitely don't just delete, perhaps consider inserting into main English Channel if no volunteers to write a decent lead. Crazy-dancing (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Highly notable, although I don't see why it is restricted to first 10 people. Oh, I created this, why wasn't I notified it was up for deletion? The main article is already crowded and cluttered, the information THERE should be moved HERE, and formatted properly. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, it's not restricted to the first ten people. If you were the one who created it, you're the one who listed the first ten people and then stopped. (And you weren't notified because it's suggested, not required; there was certainly plenty of lead-up to the AFD if you had the article on your Watchlist.) Propaniac (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The article duplicates content in English Channel, it is misleadingly titled (these are no more "successful" than the next ten), and it is an arbitrary number (why not the first 5 or the first dozen or the first 100?). Edison (talk) 03:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Title changes are discussed at the talk page, we don't delete over title disputes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I've added more prose to the article and a few entries to the table, and will continue on some expansion after I cast my vote here. The topic of swimming across the English Channel is certainly a notable one, one covered extensively in the press, and one deserving an article separate from its parent. While it may not be reasonable to include all of the nearly 1,000 people who have successfully made the crossing, a list of the earliest crossings, record breaking crossings and other notable crossings would be entirely appropriate. Good chunks of the material from the English Channel article section covering swimmers should be shifted to this one. Alansohn (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep We can certainly have a list of the most significant as here; personally I see nothing wrong with having 1000, It's a recognized major accomplishment, and if so many people manage to do it, all the better. We will not run out of space.    DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Wow-- the improvements by Alansohn have turned this into a well-sourced, first-rate article. This isn't the same page that was nominated two days ago.  I'd give the man a barnstar except that I still haven't figured out what that means.  I'd add that there's no need for a list of the first 1,000 crossings of the English Channel, since there's a link to all the crossings  provided within the article for anyone who cares about such things.  I do think that the 1,000th swimmer should get some coupons from McDonald's as a reward. Mandsford 19:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep extremely notable topic — Chris! c / t 00:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per all the reasons above. Maashatra11 (talk) 09:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Snow keep. Let's take this AfD out of its misery -- suggest a snow, or that nom w/draw it.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Silly disruptive nomination over the title of the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Come on. Don't be so closed and shy.  How do you really feel about it?  :) --Epeefleche (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I just want to point out that, as the nominator, I withdrew the nomination 6 days ago as soon as the misunderstanding about the disputed prod was clear, and I invited any uninvolved party to close the discussion. It's right up there in bold. And obviously since the article has now been improved into an actual article and not a random scrap of information, I'm still happy to invite an early close, if anyone would like to do that instead of launching silly, whiny attacks about it (or instead of starting new articles that make no sense and then abandoning them). Propaniac (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2010 (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.