Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Summer Olympics medals per capita: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:23, 26 August 2008

2008 Summer Olympics medals per capita

Original research. Also violates WP:NPOV for pushing a minority POV and WP:RS for using a blog entry (albeit one from the LA Times) for its only page reference.

Please see past AFDs about similar Olympic medal sorting schemes:

Madchester (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Questions: Nominator, given the eight additional international news media sources added by Sad mouse, do you stand by your accusations in this nomination? If so, which accusations in particular: OR, NPOV, and/or RS? Neut Nuttinbutter (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps the top five are worth a mention in the main article 2008 Summer Olympics medal table, but there is no need for its own article. Reywas92^Talk 23:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the comments repeatedly made for past articles. There are no reliable sources to support this type of article (the LA Time blog for this particular year is only a top 25 and does not state where they got their population numbers), and any attempt to extend or "improve" the list would clearly be original research. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Affirm delete. I have just read the external links added to the article after my first AfD comments, and I still believe that a standalone article is not warranted. The set of media articles don't even agree with each other—sometimes per capita calculations are used, and sometimes it is per GDP, so they really can't be used as a set of references for that "top 25" table of numbers. I think the most appropriate outcome for this discussion is a deletion of the article, but also the addition of no more than a brief paragraph of prose text (and no tables) to the 2008 Summer Olympics medal table that discusses the criticism of the standard medal table, using some of these articles as cited references. Anything more than that would be WP:undue weight. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 23:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or, by Reywas92's suggestion, merge a limited version into the main article. The article could easily be improved by adding any of the multiple main-stream media outlet references that referred to per capita medal counts. Trying to delete the article within minutes of creation does not give anyone the chance to add additional references. While this system of counting is not as common as simple totals, it was in multiple media outlets and is therefore not original research. Citing precedent is not helpful, as the per capita tables did not make main-stream media in previous games and was therefore original research. In this games they did make main-stream media and are therefore not original research by definition. Madchester's stated position on inclusion "Unless I woke up tomorrow morning and every newspaper and news agency adopted such a medals/capita system, such content is not permissible on Wikipedia" seems to be an unobtainable standard and indicates the bias of Madchester against such a system regardless of how it meets actual wikipedia criteria.Sad mouse (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As I listed above, the article fails the three fundamental policy pillars of Wikipedia. Please don't take my analogy out of context, as it was in reference to following WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. If a medal/capita standard was universally adopted by the IOC and world press, then it would easily satisfy the three listed policies. --Madchester (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Universal adoption is not and never has been the standard. Here are examples of main-stream media that discuss per capita winnings for 2008, as you can see there are many from different main-stream media outlets in multiple countries, this was just a small sample from a quick search: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-08/23/content_9653160.htm http://3news.co.nz/News/SportsNews/NewZealandawinnerperheadofpopulation/tabid/415/articleID/68358/cat/70/Default.aspx

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/thepress/4667484a6009.html http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/editorial/story.html?id=47d1c547-967b-4ba3-ba0c-0735367c27a7 http://www.theolympian.com/olympics/story/557404.html http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/olympics/wires/08/21/2090.ap.oly.inside.the.rings/ http://www.dailynk.com/english/read.php?cataId=nk00100&num=3995 http://www.montsame.mn/index.php?option=com_news&task=news_detail&tab=200808&ne=1277 Sad mouse (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While these articles discuss different/alternative ways of tallying medals, none of them are actually practiced by any reliable source. (A quick check indicates that these sources still use the IOC tally, if not a total medal count) Nor do they have any common tallying method (for example, do they all get their population figures from the same source? Do they do medals/capita or golds/capita? etc.) They're ultimately op-ed pieces and violate WP:NOR, if not WP:NPOV for pushing a specific opinion not shared by the majority.

I think this situation also fails WP:SYN. You can't use Source A and Source B to come to Conclusion C.... unless both sources independently reach the same Conclusion C. Right now, each of the alternative medal tallies listed have their own methodology and placements, so they're not reaching the same conclusion... --Madchester (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.' As an add-on, most of these new stories discussing a medals/capita tally refer to the personal website of one Bill Mitchell. Per WP:SELFPUBLISHED, we avoid using personal websites as reliable sources. On his site, Mr. Mitchell also states that I am currently hating the idea of China hosting the Olympic Games. In fact, I am hating the Olympic Games concept these days in general, so that throws WP:NPOV out the window. --Madchester (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment' Your original issue was that no one in the main stream media cared about per capita tables. I found many articles to show that this position was incorrect. Now you change your issue to saying that main-stream media articles that discuss a concept originally brought up on an individual blog cannot be used. This is absolutely not the point of WP:SELFPUBLISHED. If a blog idea gets taken up by the main-stream media it becomes news and is no longer original research. The motive of Mr Mitchell is just as irrelevant as your person motive for blocking this, the point is that whether the idea was originally his or not it was widely reported in the media of multiple countries. It certainly doesn't violate WP:NPOV because nowhere does it claim this is a better or worse measure, it simply reports a measure which was widely discussed in the media. Just listing wikipedia policies doesn't mean much if your use of them is inappropriate. Sad mouse (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands. The article currently uses total medals, rather than the official IOC G-S-B ratings, and as such is pretty much fluff. If a source can be found for a G-S-B ranking, Id like to see that information Merged per Reywas92. I dont believe it violates NOR or NPOV, but it definitely violates RS. It is worthwhile information, imo, and adding it as an aside into the official tally page might have some value. Metao (talk) 01:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Affirm Delete per Andrwsc. Metao (talk) 05:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Issue has been discussed over and over again. Clearly is not congruent with Wikipedia's policies. Nirvana888 (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per everything above. It should also be noted that the person defending this type of statistical format and article happens to be Australian. Seems kind of agenda-ish. Geologik (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Poor form. I was born in Australia and live in America. I have no idea where Neut Nuttinbutter (who made the article, not myself) is from. Have a look through my edit history, I have never edited a sporting article and I have never made any "pro-Australia" edits. You appear to be from America and to be extensively invested in editing sporting articles, yet I don't accuse you of voting delete (and it does appear to just be a vote, since you didn't use any reasoning) just because the US performs poorly on a per capita basis. It would be polite to at least look into a user's history before assuming bad faith. Also Australia is pretty much the only country that has almost the same rank by either measure, so I don't even understand what the agenda would be Sad mouse (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violates any number of policies. Basement12 (T.C) 02:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the main article. The article is actually referenced, so there is actually no violation of OR as some insist, but there is no need to stand as an article on its own for fails notability compared to the main list.--Huaiwei (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per everything above. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is deletionism taken to a senseless extreme. The article clearly isn't original research - the information is sourced to an external reference. WP:RS does deprecate the use of blogs but actually says "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." LATimes is, I think we can agree, a reliable third party publication and the person who wrote the article Chuck Culpepper is described here as a "lead sports columnist" - sounds like an established expert to me. The final argument - NPOV - is a poor argument for deletion. AndrewRT(Talk) 13:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note Also, looking at the precedent none of those tabulations had a referenced source - hence why they were clearly OR and deletable. Hence the precedent doesn't apply here. AndrewRT(Talk) 13:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per precedent & policy vio. Prince of Canada^{t | c} 13:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If large countries (i.e. the United States) were allowed to send a number of athletes in the same proportions as smaller countries (i.e. the Bahamas), perhaps such a article would make sense. As is, NOCs are restricted to one team in team events and one or two entrants in many individual events. Phizzy (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not recognized and supported by experts and specialists in sport industry. Cannot simply calculate in the sense of economy (like GDP) as winning medals is subject to different factors and Olympic rules. -Ngckmax (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pushing a POV, there are disparancies in the world, thats it. Per nom Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 14:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Additional references added and proposed merge format display on discussion page. Sad mouse (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin - Eight additional reports in established international news media were just added to the article by Sad mouse, and so I ask that this entire debate be considered as part 1 (above this note) and part 2 (below), with part 1 being informative only and part 2 being operative. I do not understand the deletion arguments, but to the extent I do understand them, they do not seem to be based on actual Wikipedia policies or guidelines, or, in the case of "POV-pushing," do not specify the point of view which is said to have been pushed. As the accused pusher, I can't think of it, either. Neut Nuttinbutter (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Several affirmations of opinions have been made above this comment, but after the comment was posted. Please check timestamps of opinions above. Metao (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this does not "violate any number of policies". Its been reported on, and its a simple to calculate statistic. No OR involved. --Reinoutr (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Absolutely fails the OR policy. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Does the Los Angeles Times not have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as described in WP:V and WP:RS? Neut Nuttinbutter (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no reason to believe it's not NPOV (how would it be POV?), the information is well sourced - the above note provides even more - and it isn't OR. OR is referring to original research, such as a scientific paper I self-publish in my basement with no outside recognition. OR does not apply to this article. It's a perfectly reasonable statistic, and dividing two numbers is not OR. By that logic, you could call almost anything "per capita" POV and OR. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 23:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not original research (the data were already there), it is sourced, and it contains interesting information. Also, I don't see a reason why it should not be neutral: it has only information, not opinions. Eynar Oxartum (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Comment: GDP and winning medals are subject to different factors. If population is significant, how can you answer why India (with 1 billion people) got 1 gold medal while China (with 1.3 billion people) get 51 gold medals. It tells us there is not direct relationship between no. of medals won and population of a country. Wining medals is subject to Olympic entry rule and National Sport Policy of an individual nation. -59.149.32.77 (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 *'''Keep'''. There's no reason to believe it's not NPOV (how would it be POV?), the information is well sourced - the above note provides even more - and it isn't OR. OR is referring to original research, such as a scientific paper I self-publish in my basement with no outside recognition. OR does not apply to this article. It's a perfectly reasonable statistic, and dividing two numbers is not OR. By that logic, you could call almost anything "per capita" POV and OR. [[User:Bart133|Bart133]] <sup>[[User talk:Bart133|t]] [[Special:Contributions/Bart133|c]] [[Special:Emailuser/Bart133|@]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Bart133 3|How's my driving?]]</sup> 23:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 *'''Keep'''. This is not original research (the data were already there), it is sourced, and it contains interesting information. Also, I don't see a reason why it should not be neutral: it has only information, not opinions. [[User:Eynar|Eynar Oxartum]] ([[User talk:Eynar|talk]]) 13:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Delete and Comment''': GDP and winning medals are subject to different factors. '''If population is significant, how can you answer why India (with 1 billion people) got 1 gold medal while China (with 1.3 billion people) get 51 gold medals.''' It tell us there is not direct relationship between medal won and population of a country. Wining medals is subject to Olympic entry rule and National Sport Policy of an individual nation. -[[Special:Contributions/59.149.32.77|59.149.32.77]] ([[User talk:59.149.32.77|talk]]) 14:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Delete and Comment''': GDP and winning medals are subject to different factors. '''If population is significant, how can you answer why India (with 1 billion people) got 1 gold medal while China (with 1.3 billion people) get 51 gold medals.''' It tells us there is not direct relationship between no. of medals won and population of a country. Wining medals is subject to Olympic entry rule and National Sport Policy of an individual nation. -[[Special:Contributions/59.149.32.77|59.149.32.77]] ([[User talk:59.149.32.77|talk]]) 14:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)