Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Winter Olympics diploma count

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 of the debate was no consensus. Flowerparty■ 15:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 Winter Olympics diploma count

This page is being nominated for deletion because it is a direct violation of the following new policy (which I will summarize) that the Olympic page-editors have adopted on Wikipedia:

No top-8 placements -- Since this is a medal count, there can be no top-8 placements; if removed, the table would be exactly the same as the one currently at 2006 Winter Olympics medal count. Therefore, since these tables were in effect banned from wikipedia by consensus of this collaboration, this table should be deleted and not reinstated.See the debate archive here.

Also note my comment below which explains that the Wikiproject Olympics created this policy long before this top-8 debate began.

• Delete as nom.--Jared ^[T]/_[+] 22:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. It appears to me that the reasoning behind the new policy is essentially that a "medal count" should specifically count medals. However, this page does not claim to be a medal count; it clearly states that it is a diploma count. It looks to be properly-sourced and verifiable. It seems that the real question is whether a page titled "diploma count" should be subjected to a policy which is specifically tailored to pages titled "medal count." Though it should be noted that the diploma count appears to be constructed specifically to flaunt the new policy. - Rynne 23:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I got the impression from that debate that a diploma count would be welcome to a good portion of the users there, so long as it was separate from a medal count. I don't think there was a consensus about whether or not it would be okay to start a new article about it, but it certainly doesn't see to violate policy. I'd like to hear from someone more involved before I make a judgment. NickelShoe 23:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - this states clearly that it's a diploma count, not a medal count, and states exactly why eight (because that's the places that get diplomas). If these are genuinely being handed out by the IOC (which I believe they are), and the standings are readily available and verifiable (which they are), then what exactly is the problem? The previous discussion was specifically about medal tables - this isn't a medal table, so the previous discussion does not necessarily hold. Average Earthman 23:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There hasn't been any good reason given to delete this. It's verifiable, has context, etc. NickelShoe 00:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I see all of your points, but why do you think that Wikipedia should have two versions of this, and perhaps all future tables? Don't you think that if everyone got their way and got thier POV across, there would be atleast twice the number of pages on WP? It just doesn';t seem right to have all of these tables floating around just because someone else likes it. The fact that the majority of people dislike them should be enough to sway your decision, though. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 00:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Further, it not only counts diplomas, but it counts medals, too, which is redundant to the original page. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 00:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: By the Olympic Charter, the first, second, and third place medalists recieve both medals and diplomas (source). That simply suggests that the medal icons and "total medal" column should be removed, but not that the article is strictly redundant.- Rynne 01:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Please also take into account this, which is an excerp from the WikiProject Sports Olympics:

The medal count section should give a table with the medals won by nation, sorted by gold, silver, bronze. Template for the table is given below.

It blatently states how the medal count should be created. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 00:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. To put it very bluntly, one small group of editors can't establish a "policy" preventing an even smaller group of editors from creating their own articles on subjects that are appropriate under Wikipedia's real policies and guidelines. If you don't like that, you can always set up your own page on geocities and exclude whomever you like (or don't like). Monicasdude 00:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but you didn't take into account the WikiProject. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 00:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I think he was rather clear that that WikiProject has no authority. --Rory096 01:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

And what gives you that notion? --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 01:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You're joking, right? --Rory096 05:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Even having said that - regardless "This is NOT a medal table", doesn't call itself one, doesn't include one (might need to remove mention of medals - but that would be just picky). :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 09:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. After consideration, I think that the page should probably be kept. However, the diploma chart should be reformatted to remove the references to medals but not the first, second, and third place diploma counts. - Rynne 01:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• DELETE. I cannot believe that after a concensus was already reached (see Wikipedia:Olympic conventions) that we are revisiting this issue. Those that support this so-called "diploma count" should have been present at the Olympic conventions debate, which I may add, was well publicized and well marked on Wikipedia for all interested parties to participate in. Most articles on the Olympic Games were marked with a template mentioning this conventions discussion and many participated. As far as I'm concerned and as far as the record is concerned, Wikipedia has already decided upon the appropriate templates for medal counts and this type of count was found inappropriate. Again, I point all interested parties to Wikipedia:Olympic conventions to see the voting process and which conventions were cleared. This is a non-issue...delete this article. The actual vote can be found here --Caponer 01:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. This was my original post for a vote on top-8 count templates. I noticed that the 2006 Winter Olympics medal count not only has medals won by each national team but also includes "Top-8 placements" (fourth through eighth places). I believe the article is named "medal count" for a reason. These tables are not named "honorable mention count." Medal counts are for medals, period. --Caponer 03:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The issue here is that in regards to the page in question, "diploma counts" are not "medal counts". However, WikiProject Sports Olympics does specify "medal counts" are to be used in general Olympic articles, so this debate would seem to have no influence on any article except this particular one. I don't think anyone is suggesting the guidelines set up in the WikiProject and Wikipedia:Olympic conventions should be changed; we're just trying to figure how they apply to this specific page. - Rynne 01:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I agree, and that is just what we have to do...to me the evidence is overwhelming, but I guess it is up to you to decide. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 02:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

One more time: There is no policy involved. There are no guidelines involved. This is how you create policy, and you certainly didn't do that. And the document you base your argument on is as explicit as it can be about not being mandatory; it says These are only suggestions, things to give you focus and to get you going, and you shouldn't feel obligated in the least to follow them. Now stop harassing people whose ideas don't line up with yours, withdraw this nonsensical nomination, and do something encyclopedic.

Monicasdude 03:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Aparently you don't get the picture. The Olympic conventions page is just a guideline, as you explicitely stated above. I've been saying that all along; if you don't believe it should be followed, don't follow it. This debate is about whether or not this page should be deleted, and after seeing the overwhelming amount of evidence against having this page, you should be sure that a DELETE vote would be best. What should there be 2 tables for anyway? Could you answer me that please (taking into account that Wikipedia is not the place to voice whimsicle opinions and points of view). --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 20:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

where exactly is this 'overwhelming amount of evidence' you speak of? Mlm42 21:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Per nom. This pseudo-policy makes sense to me. Who cares about 4th through 8th place at all - let alone a total of 4th through 8th place finished for every country? I'd be as interested to see a list of all blonde left-handed female athletes with halitosis... totalled by country of course. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: That's a rather insulting remark towards the top athletes in the world.. if you finish 8th at the olympics, surely that's worthy of some respect. Mlm42 11:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: "Insulting" has nothing to do with anything. I've got lots of insults for John Wayne Gacy but that doesn't mean he's not notable. My point is that this table doesn't offer any useful information. This doesn't even give a hint to how high 8th place is in some cases. In the Alpine Skiing article mentioned below, 8th place doesn't look so bad because 60 people were involved. In hockey and curling, 8th place is actually 3rd or 4th from last! To me, this list simply looks like a way to get an olympic mention for Moldova. I also don't see where the concept of diploma gets much coverage in the world - I'm reasonably knowledgeable about sports and I've never even heard of the concept. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: so first you compared olympic athletes to blondes with halitosis, and now you're comparing them to a serial killer? take it easy.. i'm just reminding you to be nice, that's all. Anyway, I'd never heard of the concept either until i came across this table.. but that's certainly not justification for deleting it. are you disputing the notability of the table? since the olympics are such a high-profile event, i would think that even qualifying for them is a notable feat.. Mlm42 14:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment: Come on, are you reading every 3rd word of what I write? In my first statement, I was trying to simply make a point that showing the total of all athletes from Iceland who came in 7th from the Olympics sounds like useless statistic-cruft to me. I wasn't comparing the athletes, I was comparing the usefulness of the data presented (sheesh). Then you accused me of being insulting so my second statement was saying that, not only wasn't I trying to be insulting of the athletes themselves but that, even if I was being insulting, that has nothing to do with notability - i.e. I think you're confusing two separate concepts (sheesh again). If I'm insulting anything, it's how little the data in this table is actually showing. I don't mind the lists that show who came in 48th in Alpine Skiing because you're right, just making the Olympics is noteworthy. But that's not what this list is showing - it's showing a giant total of all of the 7th-place finishers grouped by country. Not interesting. Is there some big study I'm not aware of that's relating the number of 7th-place finishers from Scandinavia to the phases of Jupiter? I don't think a list of people from Hungary whose name begins with J would be very interesting either - that doesn't mean I hate all people from Hungary whose name starts with J. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
          • yikes, sorry.. i know you meant no harm; i guess i was just put off by your 'who cares' attitude towards to athletes. no hard feelings.. and i know insults are separate from notability, but that doesn't mean i can't address them. as for notability, a tally of medals for each country is clearly a very notable table; and although a tally of these lesser known diplomas is less notable, i still feel it's enough to stay. but i suppose that's what this vote is supposed to decide. Mlm42 16:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: As this is Not a medal table the policy (which is only from a small group of editors) doen't even apply. Ok it mentions medals (maybe it shouldn't just 1 to 8 placings) but the level of restricting infomation available is almost censureship. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 09:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment So based on the above thinking all the recent 2006 articles like the following Alpine_skiing_at_the_2006_Winter_Olympics_-_Men's_Combined should be bined. I certainly don't hink so. !! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 09:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not necessarily because they were voted down for the medal count pages where indeed this doesn't belong but delete because the diploma counts are wholly non-notable. No-one ever reports on those except maybe some very local media when their hometown athlete returns with their 8th placed diploma. I don't want to see dozens of articles with these counts that very few will ever look at. People can look at results pages to see who came in fourth etc and draw their own conclusions.--Kalsermar 15:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

But have you looked at the page I mention just above. The way this debate is going it will jepadise all results past the first 3. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 15:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is proposing to delete pages like Alpine skiing at the 2006 Winter Olympics - Men's Combined. I am arguing that we don't need another table in addition to the medal counts and the results. We will end up having diploma count of the British Virgin Islands at the 1984 summer Olympics and the like if we aren't carefull.--Kalsermar 15:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

No, because those pages are just for information about the specific evnent....at those pages, it is beneficial to have a through 8th place count. but on a main page, it is not necessary to have two or more pages. Can someone give me a valid reason for why 2 or more tables would be productive and benefit the wikipedia viewing community. Its a prepoeterous idea that will cause upset for future olympics if it not settled now. I agree with Kal because that is qwhat's going to happen if we're not careful now. Jared 18:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Thanks, Jared. Now that someone has given a reason, I can see the point. There really is no need to classify this information in one table for the entire Olympics. It does belong in more specific places, like the actual sports, but an overall table isn't necessary. NickelShoe 19:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete whether the Olympic guidelines are policy or not aside, it just doesn't seem like anyone ever talk about the "diploma count". We certainly should have the information of who got a diploma, which as Jared said is mentioned in the articles about the respective events. Having a medal count article would be original research too, if not for the fact that the medal count is published in a wide variety of media... savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep All during the games, Canadian announcers made mention of countries' past performances included places beyond medal rankings. Interesting historic information to be kept. --Walter Görlitz 09:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

also simply to look at pages like Canada at the 2006 Winter Olympics will show you that places beyond the official rankings are recorded. --Walter Görlitz 09:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well that's the point we were trying to make; that the individual pages show the top-8/7/whatever to why do we need the information reiterated in yet another table. I agree with Can atr the X Olympics or Skiing at the X olympics having a top-8 count, but not the major medal counts. No. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 13:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The supposed "policy" referred to in the nomination has no force, and the WikiProject discussed above, regardless of consensus it might or might not have reached, is at best a suggestion. So I could wikilawyer and vote "keep" based on invalid nomination alone. But I dislike wikilawyering and support process only as far as it supports content. On that count, I'm not sure how notable 4-8th place finishes are, but clearly some people keep track of them. So I'm inclined to say notable rather than nn, which also suggests "keep". Martinp 04:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting info. Nationalparks 07:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I interesting the reason you vote keep? I think they're interesting, but having 2 tables is outrageous! If it is kept, there will be 2 tables for all Medal counts from now on. That wouldn't be a great idea. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 20:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that would certainly be terrible. It might cause Wikipedia to run out of cyberspace a week or two before the heat death of the universe. Write back when you have a definite timeline on that point, and I'll reconsider my "vote" then. Monicasdude 21:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Monicasdude, I am not prosoping the Wikipedia Apocalypse here, I am just saying that Wikipedia can't include everything; let's say I made a webpage titled "Jared's Web" located at jaredsweb.com. Would this be an acceptable article for which to make a Wikipedia article. No, of course not. So why should we have 2 medal counts for the same games, especially if contains information that most people wouldn't want to see/understand. I'm sorry you misunderstood my comment. Jared 13:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Jared, I don't understand what you've got against this table.. is it offensive to you in some way? I personally like it because it gives country comparisons more depth - and in particular, if you count fourth place finishes, Canada beats the USA.. being Canadian, this makes me smile; but i can understand an American possibly wanting to gloss over this fact - which probably shouldn't be done on wikipedia.. and i mean, yes, there are two tables.. in fact, the information in one table is entirely contained within the other (which suggests to get rid of the smaller one! but that would be silly).. so although aesthetically it may be nice to have no duplication, i don't see a problem with sacrificing some aesthetic value for knowledge.. this is an encyclopedia, after all. Mlm42 21:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I have just looked at all of the comments and we're just about split between keep and delete. I think that the main reason for the Keep votes is because the table is a nice suppliment to the main one; and I agree that is a tad interesting to look at. But what I'm trying to put across is that one table should be enough. People should come to Wikipedia knowing that they will get one type of medal count for each past, present, and future games; this will lessen their confusion. Further, while it would be possible to put up for this and all future games, the diploma count is blatently shown on all pages like Speed_skating_at_the_2006_Winter_Olympics_-_Men's_500_metres, which should be the place for the more specific counts. I hope you realize that I am not opposed to the counts I proposed for deletion, I just don't think they have a place in Wikipedia. Might I suggest a link to a page that shows one of these counts? Jared 13:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel a little strange arguing about this, because what I disagree with most is your philosophy of wikipedia. I think people should come to wikipedia with some question they want answered, and then become pleasantly surprised when they get more than what they asked for. I certainly hope there aren't too many people out there thinking "i hope this article has only the information i'm looking for, and nothing more".. that wouldn't be in the encyclopedic spirit. I mean, it's nice if articles fit together in a beautiful and consistent way, but our primary goal should be providing relevant, quality information. and since you probably won't find a table like this elsewhere, I think wikipedia is exactly the place for it.. it's verifiable content, and as i mentioned, makes country comparisons a lot easier.. say, for example, you wanted a list of all countries that had fourth place finishers; without this table, how would you do it? you'd either have to go through every single country page, or every single sport page - that's a lot of work! a lot of work that is already done for us with this table.. and if that isn't a reason to keep, then i don't know what is.. Mlm42 16:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Mlm42 16:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

But in a perfect world, who's going to be coming to WP to look for medal counts anyway? I know that sometimes, the more the better, but I have to disagree with you here, for reasons stated above. To top it all off, who out of all of the people here who voted keep could hold to it right now that they would and could impliment a diploma count for every olympics AND the total counts (total, winter, summer)? I myself would not be willing, nor do I have the time, to do such a thing. The idea in theory is good, but the practice will be much more difficult as we all know will come down to: I don't fell like doing it because it is too hard. I hope you took this into consideration when you guys voted keep. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 20:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Jared, the beauty of wikipedia is that you don't have to worry about things like that! Somebody will do it :) did you check the edit history to see who was updating the tables? a good chunk of them were from anons that did nothing other than edit the medal count.. that's something anybody can easily do, and they will do it.. you shouldn't burden yourself with things you don't want to do - you are just a volunteer, after all; so don't be afraid to relax and let things take their course. Mlm42 23:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

If optimistic is your attitude, right on! But optimism might not get pages made. Just because people do edit those pages doesn't mean that they will want to create new pages for all of the 50-some-odd olympics pages that don't have diploma counts. I'm trying to be relaxed, but you guys are proposing a policy that probably won't get implimented because of a lack of motivation, and it will come down to having some pages with a count and others without. Thinking ahead is what will get you far in life...not just a whimsicle thought of optimism. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 23:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

But it's okay to have some pages with a diploma count and others without.. wikipedia will never be finished, but one of the driving forces is hope that in the future it will continue to get better and better. people create stubs in the hope that they will be expanded.. if everyone had your pessimistic attitude, we'd probably delete all the stubs.. reason for deletion: "well, i don't want to expand this article.. better delete it!" oy, how did i get into this discussion.. i guess all i'm saying is that you just have to have faith in the world sometimes :) Mlm42 00:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess I agree, but I'm not going to stand down from my vote. Let's just stop this nonsensical "fighting" and get back to editing pages that really matter. --J@red ^[T]/_[+] 01:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I've gone back and forth on whether or not to even vote or comment on this issue. I've decided to vote for keep because I feel that if someone is willing to create the page, than it's worthwhile to have. We have country pages that have top 10 lists in addition to their medal counts, it's definitely worthwhile to hear. A fourth place finish is often brought up as it's just outside of the medal count. Sue Anne 06:29, 12 March 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.