Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudan at the 1968 Summer Olympics

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Sr13 07:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sudan at the 1968 Summer Olympics

Sudan at the 1968 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Yes, I admit it, I've been seduced by the dark side. But, darn it, this time she's right. It's a one sentence article, with little hope of ever becoming more than that, with no information that is not better conveyed by a list of "the following countries participated" at our article on that Olympics - and, guess what, it's already there: 1968_Summer_Olympics#Participating_nations! Please help me burn it with the heat of the 1968 Mexico City sun. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm going to bundle a bunch more like that here. They all have the important facts in common - no awards, no notable participants, one sentence that merely says they showed up, no information beyond that. So as not to confuse the issue, I'm leaving out every article with a single bit of information more that that, even Guatemala at the 1968 Summer Olympics which at least says that country hadn't competed for 16 years, that's at least something. Everything else is darn close to a speedy deletion candidate for no assertion of notability. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Ghana at the 1968 Summer Olympics
  2. Afghanistan at the 1968 Summer Olympics
  3. Algeria at the 1968 Summer Olympics
  4. Trinidad and Tobago at the 1968 Summer Olympics
  5. Bolivia at the 1968 Summer Olympics
  6. Suriname at the 1968 Summer Olympics
  7. Sudan at the 1968 Summer Olympics
  8. Senegal at the 1968 Summer Olympics
  9. Ireland at the 1968 Summer Olympics
  10. Luxembourg at the 1968 Summer Olympics
  11. Liechtenstein at the 1968 Summer Olympics
  12. Egypt at the 1968 Summer Olympics
  13. Iceland at the 1968 Summer Olympics
  14. Monaco at the 1968 Summer Olympics
  15. Panama at the 1968 Summer Olympics
  16. Colombia at the 1968 Summer Olympics
  17. Lebanon at the 1968 Summer Olympics
  18. Bermuda at the 1968 Summer Olympics
  19. Puerto Rico at the 1968 Summer Olympics
  20. Morocco at the 1968 Summer Olympics
  21. Costa Rica at the 1968 Summer Olympics
  22. San Marino at the 1968 Summer Olympics
  23. Israel at the 1968 Summer Olympics
  24. Hong Kong at the 1968 Summer Olympics
  25. Guyana at the 1968 Summer Olympics
  26. Netherlands Antilles at the 1968 Summer Olympics
  27. Fiji at the 1968 Summer Olympics
  28. Singapore at the 1968 Summer Olympics
  29. Iraq at the 1968 Summer Olympics
  30. Burma at the 1968 Summer Olympics
  31. Bahamas at the 1968 Summer Olympics
  32. Vietnam at the 1968 Summer Olympics
  33. Malaysia at the 1968 Summer Olympics
  34. Madagascar at the 1968 Summer Olympics
  35. Dominican Republic at the 1968 Summer Olympics
  36. Côte d'Ivoire at the 1968 Summer Olympics
  37. Libya at the 1968 Summer Olympics
  38. Niger at the 1968 Summer Olympics
  • Keep. I see these articles as stubs that can be filled in as editors who are interested in the subject get around to it. Is there a reason to delete them? Some day they might turn into good articles, and the information necessary to make them good articles does exist out there somewhere. Tempshill 16:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deleting these isn't getting rid of a single bit of information that isn't encapsulated in that list I linked to. If someone wants to write an actual article, they can do so just as easily without informationless stubs. On that basis, we may as well take, oh, "Who's Who" or the New York Times obituary pages for a given year, and make every entry into a stub "John A. Smith" was a person. "John B. Smith" was a person. "John C. Smith" was a person... and wait for someone else to make those into good articles.--AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It all seems rather pointless. I agree with AnonEMouse, they are pointless stubs that, while have a possibility of becoming full, rich articles, have a bigger possibility as languishing exactly as they are now, complete wastes of space because the information is available somewhere else. Vaguely 17:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep — The nominator fails to recognize that these are clearly stub articles that in fact do have hope of ever becoming more than that. The conventions established at Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics are that we organize Games results by sport and by nation. These articles are clearly part of the latter series. The type of content that could be put on Sudan at the 1968 Summer Olympics are results for all the Sudanese competitors at those Games. Take a look at Sudan at the 2004 Summer Olympics for an example of a more complete article of this type. The 1968 stub includes a link to a website that hosts all the PDF files for the official reports for past Games, so the framework is set for an editor to take up the job of expanding the stub. We simply haven't got around to it yet, but of course, there is no deadline. I assert that keeping these articles as incomplete stubs is more useful to the project than deleting them until one of us gets around to the 1968 results. Andrwsc 17:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Followup: I've just added the results of the five Sudanese competitors for the 1968 Games to that article, just to prove that it can easily be expanded beyond what the nominator claims. Andrwsc 18:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep for this and all other listed articles as per Andrwsc. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 17:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep These pages are part of the WikiProject Olympics and the work is still in progress! Doma-w 18:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Thered is no point to creating scads of stubs which merely say "Madagascar competed at the 1968 Summer Olympics in Mexico City, Mexico." Creators being part of a project does not overrule the notion that Wikipedia is not a directory. When you have an article, create it. These stubs are not needed as placeholders to remind someone to write an article when they get around to it. Edison
  • These stubs are more than just placeholders. They are targets for wikilinks in various results pages, as generated by the {{flagIOCathlete}} and related templates. Take a look at a completed page for a recent Games, like Canoeing at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Men's K-1 500 metres to see how this works. Our long-term goal in the Olympics WikiProject is to have full results from all Games presented in a common style, using these kinds of wikilinks to connect results pages for individual events to results pages for individual countries. Removing these stub "Nation at the year Olympics" articles until there is something substantial to be listed will have the effect of breaking this system by creating lots of redlinks. Andrwsc 20:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just wrote up the Ghana entry, and will proceed to boldly remove it from this deletion nomination as the concern has been adressed properly. It's not particularly easy work, but I do it out of respect and understanding of the nominator. More write-ups will soon follow, and I'll keep you posted. Punkmorten 18:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did some more today. More to come tomorrow. Punkmorten 20:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Andrwsc. These pages are expandable stubs, not useless spam. Kolindigo 18:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just added athletes/results to Israel at the 1968 Summer Olympics and am boldly removing it from the list of stubs. I don't have time right now to get the article the same exact style as other Country by Year pages, but I think the info is what counts. Kolindigo 20:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete any that remain no more than "Fooland competed ...." a week's prompting for input is enough for the stubs to blossom. On a technical note (not being an Olympics follower myself), do the countries "compete" or do the athletes compete; I thought is was the latter. Carlossuarez46 19:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're kidding, right? There are literally tens of thousands of stubs on English Wikipedia, and you are proposing a one week limit for those in Category:1968 Summer Olympics stubs to be completed? Andrwsc 19:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - not it's not a "one week limit" - some of these have been completely useless stubs for nine months or more. That's plenty of time for some content to have been added. Delete for now and re-create when and only when someone is prepared to do the work to make them worthwhile. - fchd 07:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The AfD process is a wake-up call to those who want to keep these. If a one-line stub Fooland competed in the YYYY Olympics is keepable; why not "Fooistan did not compete in the YYYY Olympics"? Carlossuarez46 16:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment The WP:OLYMPICS project is a massive undertaking, with a tremendous amount of work required to "complete". These stubs serve as the outline of how we intend to proceed. For example, because the infobox contains links to all the other instances of the nation competing at other Games, and the navigation box at the bottom contains links to all the other nations at these Games, we have a very effective way of browsing Olympic history. Deleting these stubs would create hundreds of red links and break this navigation system. Your point is analogous to saying that if we were building a house, we should not put up any walls unless we intend to finish them off before moving to the next wall. We'd rather build the foundation first, then the frame, and so on. Removing the framing while the house is still under construction is counter-productive. Andrwsc 17:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are stubs that begin at an obvious starting point. It may or may not be the case that further desirable data will be added to any or all of them in my lifetime. This does not change the fact that the single sentence each contains along with its infobox and template is verifiably and reliably true, and that each of these countries' Olympic teams and their several accomplishments or lack of same are notable enough to support an article. There really isn't a valid reason to delete these stubs. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I honestly don't care about any of these countries role in any Olympics, but unless you're saying they weren't there, this isn't a deletion issue. It's a content-development one. In the interest of encouraging said development, I'm saying keep. FrozenPurpleCube 19:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickYStrong Keep All are perfectly legitimate stubs that can be expanded. Although it may never be expanded greatly, it is definitely notable enough to keep. Reywas92TalkHow's my editing? 19:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, these are legitimate stubs. I can see Kelly Martin's point, but that could be said about tens of thousands of other articles. Unless we have an objective bar to measure which countries have competitive teams to write about (and of course that varies by sport), the only fair approach is to write about all of them. The Olympic gold medal count may look like a parabolic curve, but all those countries with one bronze medalist deserve some systemic bias love.--Dhartung | Talk 19:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- legitimate stubs that have scope for expansion- topic is notable Thunderwing 20:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (and not only year 1968 olympics). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jklamo (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Being a stub is no reason to delete an article. Data can be added, and will be if people with interest and expertise in the sporting history of these nations comes around. That some have already been crossed out only proves this. Resolute 22:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Punkmorten's furious work shows that these articles can become more than just one sentence, and that the information is out there. CharacterZero | Speak 22:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Articles such as this cheat the reader into following a link only to find no content that could not be deduced by reading the article title. While an informative stub is useful, a one line stub created for the sole purpose of removing a redlink or holding a place is worse that useless, it is damaging to the repuation of Wikipedia. If an article can't be created with at least minimal context, there is nothing wrong with waiting until such content can be sourced. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 23:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It can be created and can be sourced. It just hasn't been yet because there's a backlog. Kolindigo 23:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Why not wait until someone has the time to create at least a useable stub with that information, rather than a one line stub. My point still stands that one line stubs are worse than useless and Wikipedia is better off without them. Deleting these articles would mean no loss of information to Wikipedia, the backlog would not be affected as no extra work would be created (for all intents and purposes the articles are empty anyway) and we would be honest with our readers that we do not have an article at this stage. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 23:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Why are these particular stub articles being targeted for deletion? There are many, many, many thousands of stubs, and the consensus of the whole Wikipedia project is that stubs are useful and accepted. The original nomination claimed that these articles had "little hope of ever becoming more than that", which we have quickly shown to be false. Therefore, I think turning this into a debate about the usefulness of stubs is inappropriate. Andrwsc 23:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Other stuff existing is not a valid reason to keep. I agree stubs with some context are useful but I would dispute that there is any consensus that one line stubs are useful. Furthermore, it is entirely valid to make reference to the usefulness of one line stubs at AfD. Discussion through the AfD process is one way that community consensus is discerned. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 00:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I unfortunately feel that our project would be put at a loss if pages were deleted like this. I can see your point in thinking that they are just normal stubs and should be deleted, but they are entirely notable events that deserve pages. Eventually, when we at the project have free time or are not doing anything related to another project, we will expand these pages, but you must understand that there are a lot, and deleting them with both reduce my interest in starting them up again, as well as set us back a few months in work! I just don't think deletion is a viable solution to the problem, and I would urge you and anyone else reading this to consider helping out at the Olympics WP. There is always something that needs to be done, as you can see, and your help would be greatly appreciated, even if you don't contribute there often. └Jared┘┌t┐  11:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply comment (outdent) I am very well aware that "other stuff" is not a valid argument; my question was more to understand your rationale for deleting these stubs. You've answered that by saying it's because they are "one line" stubs, but I think that is quite misleading. It's true that they contain one line of prose text, but that's because I moved much of the extra details into the infobox. Before I developed those infoboxes, the stubs had more information written as prose. See this edit for example. Currently the infoboxes tell you: When did the nation first compete at the Games? How many times? Did they miss any Games? Did they win any medals at these Games? What is their country code? Some stubs also include links to the appropriate National Olympic Committee articles and websites (see Ireland at the 1968 Summer Olympics). I assert that all of this provides suitable context for these to be valid stubs. What more do you think needs to be there? (I'm not asking for a complete article; I'm asking for what you think the minimum level for stub status is.) On another note, I should say that before I created all these stubs, there were hundreds of redlinks present on Olympic articles, and many of those articles were listed on Wikipedia:Most wanted articles. A couple of editors thought enough of my work to eliminate those holes by awarding me barnstars. I find it greatly ironic that another set of editors feels so strongly that we should completely undo that work. Andrwsc 17:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: These articles are being worked on by a group of editors. I basically concur with everything Andrewsc has said in his comments throughout this discussion. --Sue Anne 00:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These pages are all viable stub articles. There is a finite (but growing, if you can make sense out of that) number of articles for the Olympics, and it is important to ensure that they are all there. While our efforts at WP:OLYMPICS have shifted recently to other areas, we recognize that these articles still have potential and should be kept. └Jared┘┌t┐  00:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The editors working on the history of the Olympics have a huge task on their hands and deleting these pages would be a slap in the face for them. The articles need expanding in time, as they will be, not deleting. Nick mallory 15:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks folks. I'm quite glad if you can prove me wrong, and these can actually grow to have useful information. Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard is one of my favorite essays, and these seem to be meeting it. Now please don't stop due to me thanking you. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate this statement, AnonEMouse. I hadn't seen that essay before, but it sure is compelling! However, I hope the expectation isn't that we immediately turn our attention to working on this set of 1968 articles just because they are current AfD candidates. It would be discouraging to the WP:OLYMPICS contributors if we felt like we were being "coerced" into a particular work plan based on prodding from AfD nominators and commentors. We have an immense amount of work to do, and part of the appeal of this project (at least for me) is that we can tackle different parts at different times, based on personal choice. I want to set my own work agenda, because after all, this is just a hobby.... Andrwsc 17:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, the topic is obviously notable, and we can wait for as long as it takes for people to expand it (although some expansion appears to have already occurred). Everyking 10:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as all these stubs have potential for growth. Tim! 10:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudan_at_the_1968_Summer_Olympics&oldid=1123555526"