Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swimming at the 2009 Maccabiah Games – Men's 100 metre backstroke


 * 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) – Davey 2010 Talk 22:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Swimming at the 2009 Maccabiah Games – Men's 100 metre backstroke

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a remarkable nor notable tournament. Also notability is not stated and it relies on rehasing one reference. I support a deletion or a merge. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also nominating these following articles for the same reasons:
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 23:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 23:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 23:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 23:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Maccabiah Games is quite notable tournament, being the third-largest sporting event in the world behind the Olympics and the Asian Games. . Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete – notability of the Games is dubious. Even more dubious is dedicated articles for results and even more dubious still is specific dated results for certain events. Sports spam that doesn't warrant its own article. Laurdecl talk 09:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * How can it be dubious, if this is third-largest sporting event in the world? Look here:, , , , . And it's enough to look at the article about games Maccabiah Games Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Its not the the "third largest" sporting event in the world. The Olympics (both editions) and the World Cup are in the top 3. This event is a minor event with a lot of non-notable athletes. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I am basing on the article Maccabiah Games and it's references. Also, World Cup is a one sport event. Here we're talking about multisport event. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep all per - the games are well-established and well-cited, and medal wins often cited in the media and especially in obituaries of former athletes. Whether it's the third, fourth, or fifth-largest sports competition is irrelevant. It's big is why it's notable. That it's Jewish is important. As a procedural matter, a whole-scale discussion is inappropriate, and could risk a dangerous precedent. I might favor the merger of one or two of these stubs, but I'd prefer a separate discussion at a merger board. Bearian (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a notable competition, based on the breadth and scope of reliable and verifiable sources, as cited above by other editors. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete. Alansohn (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The tournament is clearly notable, nominator's statements nonwithstanding. The entire basis for this AfD is irrelevant, and as such should be closed. Smartyllama (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep/Merge - looks suspiciously like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I would support a keep although I am also open to a merge. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2017 (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.