Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical nations at the Winter Olympics

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. Mangojuice^talk 17:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tropical nations at the Winter Olympics

While I've contributed information about tropical nations competing at the Winter Olympics, I feel this is a bad idea for an article - the focus is arbitrary. It lacks citations, and is a magnet for original research, inaccuracies and points of view. Andjam 10:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. The odd focus can probably be rectified with a title change (to what? Not sure, but it would need to either be stricter on what is defined as "tropical" to disclude Australia, Iran and others or be more inclusive so's to get them in). Citations shouldn't be too hard to find, since there are (I presume) already articles on the various countries named. As for the fact that it's a magnet for nasty things, so is at least 25% of the entire 'pedia. This one hasn't yet attracted anything untoward that I can see. That all being said, the fact remains that there's already articles on "[Country] at the [Year] Winter Olympics", so perhaps this is superfluous. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 11:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As per above. It is a dull topic, and there is unlikely to be many widely available sources for this topic to be written to an encylopedic standard. It has already attracted misleading information about Australia, Iran, Algeria, and Cyprus, which do not have mostly tropical climates. Rintrah 11:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ONLY per failure of WP:V - vandal/misinformation target is not a criterion for deletion, after all, we have George W Bush as an article. Nor is poorly written a criterion for deletion. WilyD 13:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - a curiosity article. Not dull at all, although the Tropical criteria is questionable, the focus is on warmer countries, who have sent people to the Winter Olympics. --MacRusgail 15:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the above. Needs to be copyeditted and closely watched for OR, but it's fine. —Nightstallion (?) 15:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Could become a great article if retitled and expanded. violet/riga (t) 16:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per T. Anthony's recomendation to limit the "tropical distinction". This could be a very worthwhile and encyclopedic article. Agne 19:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Winter Olympic Games. Punkmorten 19:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. One of my biggest pet peeves on Wikipedia are articles with what the nom calls an arbitrary focus, but I'm not sure this qualifies. The idea is that countries that basically don't have a winter still have athletes that compete in the Winter Games is an interesting one that should be covered somewhere, but since its such a minor topic anything more than a sentence would mess up the balance of Winter Olympic Games. The fact that no one (including me) can come up with a better title is perhaps a clue that there isn't one, though I'm open to suggestions. Recury 19:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No real info inside. Pavel Vozenilek 22:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and Pavel Vozenilek. Silly, misleading unencyclopedic trivia "gee whiz" article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is no obvious reason why a country without marked winter seasons or in generally warmer climates can't have people expert in winter sports (you don't even have to have mountains). Skiing is huge in Iran (which is not "tropical" anyway). It rarely snows in London, does this mean that its odd to have skiers in London etc etc. Bwithh 00:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - "There is no obvious reason why a country without marked winter seasons or in generally warmer climates can't have people expert in winter sports (you don't even have to have mountains)." - yes there is. Because there's nowhere to practice outside, and creating indoor facilities is very expensive. It's like Outer Mongolia entering a team in ocean yachting. Geography and climate works against it. --MacRusgail 18:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep but limit to nations that are mostly or entirely within the tropics(23.5 degrees of lattitude North or South) and give information on how they ranked or what their highest ranking was in any event.--T. Anthony 03:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This could be an interesting encyclopedia topic, though it is disappointing as it stands.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Better off in some other larger article. The limited focus is not deserving for Wikipedia. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 08:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I see nothing inherently wrong with "gee whiz" articles, and as for verifiability there are already four external citations given in as many paragraphs. Bryan 08:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

In fairness I added those and they were not there before the deletion vote.--T. Anthony 08:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep per BigHaz. Ergative rlt 17:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It serves as a portal, linking to other articles of interest, and it deals with an interesting topic. YechielMan 23:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As long as the article uses a consistent definition of "tropical", it can be turned into a good piece. Surely classifying a country as "tropical" or not is easier than classifying a band by music genre. Kla'quot ^Sound 04:02, 21 September 2006 (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.