Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rowing at the 2008 Summer Olympics - Women's lightweight double sculls


 * 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 per WP:SNOW, I don't see that this needs to be dragged on any longer. All Olympic events are considered notable. - Icewedge (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Rowing at the 2008 Summer Olympics - Women's lightweight double sculls
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article subject is way too refined and contains entirely too much detail for an encyclopedic article.


 * Delete as nominator.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep you're singling out a single article in a series of articles for what particular reason? Why is this one more suitable for deletion than the other ones on the nav template? RowingAt2008SummerOlympics 70.51.8.158 (talk) 05:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as a totally valid topic: and how is too much detail a reason for deletion? Admittedly, the article isn't sourced at the moment, but it can easily be done (talk to the Olympics wikiproject for help if necessary), and the refined subject is due to the impossibility of covering everything sufficiently in a single page without making the page way too long and large.  Nyttend (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep --WildCherry06 (talk) 06:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep see category:2008 Summer Olympics events, each event is generally considered notable. - Icewedge (talk) 08:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Olympic events are among the most prestigious in existence. They are consistently well-covered in mainstream media, and major sporting events are remembered long after the event took place, making them more than just news stories. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep partly because the nom does not mention a single violation of any policy or guideline and partly because I think deleting an article because it is too detailed is frankly ridiculous. If you think it is too narrow you could have proposed a merger. You don't need AfD for that. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is the highest level of athletic competition and thus notable. No vaild re3ason for deletion is given. Edward321 (talk) 13:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can see where the nominator is coming from, we have a giant set of articles that are mostly result tables of single sporting events that don't stand out in history and are soon forgotten by the public, and another giant set of stubs that will never grow about random athletes who competed in those events, and all of that would be best maintained in a separate wiki devoted to sport in my opinion, however, I see no reason why this particular event is singled out, and it breaks neither policies nor guidelines. Equendil Talk 14:34, 20 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.