Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athlete arrests

From 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 DELETE. -Docg 11:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Athlete arrests

Athlete arrests (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Originally created with one event only, now has a whopping three. Athlete arrests = list of arbitrary events which happened to an arbitrarily chosen class of person. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: This page was created as Athelete arrests and then moved to the correct spelling, so that redirect will need to be dealt with as well. Postdlf 19:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete any important information is already in relevant articles. Tarret 23:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete because "athelete" is not an English word. Tarinth 23:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Spelling Corrected Dgreenfi
  • It is true that the info is in articles already but this brings up an interesting issue about information organization. Sometimes one would like to gather certain pieces into one place. The ability of Wiki to be more than just an electronic version of a paper encyclopedia should be used. Not sure though how that could be implemented in this case. This is a case of a user trying to use Wiki to bring together existing wiki info in a different organizational format to better suit their needs and possibly the needs of a larger group. I think this might be a bigger issue that needs to be discussed before we go on just deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.145.243 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, WP:NOT violation. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, trivia. People of all stripes get arrested all the time, and athletes are no different; we just hear about it because they're famous. Regarding the previous anonymous comment, no one's arguing against ever maintaining complementary organizational schemes for the same information. You need to justify why this one should be kept. Postdlf 00:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, This documents a cultural phenomenon that is specific to Atheletes. Using your logic, you could argue that all entries should be listed under People, Places or Things. My timeline is no less arbitraty than this Timeline of the big bang. Dgreenfi
Um... huh? Bwithh 01:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • User:Dgreenfi is the creator of the article in question. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, I don't follow your comparison. Please elaborate on how the big bang timeline is "arbitrary," and how that relates to this. Postdlf 01:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
      • My point is that simlarly to the big bang site, my site is a list of events related to a central topic.
  • Please note the added link to the journal article regarding the cultural phenomenon of crime amongst atheletes. Dgreenfi
That's one opinion article from a trade magazine with a readership of 54,400, and the article is saying that there's a (mostly racially-based) stereotype (people in the US supposedly typically associate pro athletics with African-Americans, and associate African-Americans with crime), and arguing that these stereotypes are deeply misleading . Bwithh 01:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per all above Bwithh 01:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep How is the Big Bang related? Well, there is a page that lays out the timeline. How is it arbitary? Well, it is subject to individual judgement. For example, I don't believe it. I do however believe that the rise in violent crimes committed by professional athletes is something that people are interested in and a timeline of such events would make a good page.Ajlynch131 01:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Ajlynch131 (talk · contribs) only has three edits, one to this article, and two to this AFD. I suggest Ajlynch131 "and" Dgreenfi read WP:SOCK. You forgot to mention that both this and the big bang article are in English. Postdlf 01:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I detect a hint of sarcasm in your response but all I was doing was answering your question. Someone above provides a link to the "What Wikipedia is NOT" page. I just read the page and I do not see anything related to this timeline suggestion. Can someone please explain the "violation"? Thanks Ajlynch131 02:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. GassyGuy 01:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I am not the same person as Ajlynch and you seem to be mising the point of "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion" in the Etiquitte guide. Please apologize for your accusational post. I am removing your comments Postdlf as I consider that a personal attack in an attempt to undermine my credibility and the credibility of another new user.Dgreenfi
    • I'm going to say this once: DO NOT remove other users' comments from public discussions.[1] This is considered vandalism and will be sanctioned. As for my suggestion that Ajlynch is a sockpuppet based on his and your contributions, the similarity of comments, and the timing of the postings, res ipsa loquitur. Postdlf 03:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Congratulations, you are both obnoxious and wrong.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgreenfi (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - and please tell me this is just your idea of a crazy strawman. If so, please see WP:POINT. Tarinth 02:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Stay on topic Can we please focus on the topic of why an article about the history or athletes being arrested is not viable for wiki.
  • Delete This has to be a joke right? This cannot be serious. Even if it were 20 or 30 years of events, I still would be somewhat doubtful about it. If this were a well-known phenomenon that was well established, of a crime trend or jump in a certain segment of the population, then maybe. But this... I see no trend. This poor article is pitiful. And I do not really understand the point, unless it was meant as a joke.--Filll

Its not meant as a joke, its meant as a starting point. Isn't that the point of Wikipedia, that one person can't collect the whole set of knowledge on a topic but the community can? Why should and article be 100% complete when posted. Dgreenfi

The point of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, not to be a dumping ground for random "knowledge". Danny Lilithborne 07:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete In addition to the WP:NOT concerns raised above, this list has serious neutrality issues in that it documents a group of negative events without placing any of the events into context. Information on an individuals legal problems are best kept in their respective articles were complete information on the reasons and consequences (both positive and negative) of the arrest can be properly explained and sourced. --Allen3 talk 05:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • And of course simply being arrested does not mean that the individual necessarily committed a crime, or that they were eventually convicted of anything. Postdlf 05:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and read WP:ILIKEIT. Yuser31415 05:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - This is a potentially meaningful and encyclopedic topic. Unfortunately, this is NOT a potentially and meaningful encyclopedia article. BigDT 05:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as an article, but might it not make a worthwhile Category, as per above comment about exploiting the digital medium that WP is? ThuranX 06:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per BigDT. Danny Lilithborne 07:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is basically a indiscriminate list of information. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 08:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, arbitrary list, no more worthy of an article than "List of arrested accountants". Tabloid celebrity coverage does not belong in an encyclopaedia. Demiurge 13:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, Wikipedia is full of arbitrary lists, See List Of Black Jews black isn't even an appropriate categorization. dgreenfi
    • It's nice to see that even the proponent of keeping this acknowledges this is completely arbitrary. Please read WP:INN. Then, either attempt to clean, discuss, or AfD the List of Black Jews article, since you obviously think it needs work. GassyGuy 07:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Arbitrary as maybe this article that seems to be accepted so freely on the Wiki - [| List of Black Jews]. I haven't seen a single good reason to delete this article other than everyone finds it personally objectionable. Although people have been trying to cite Wikipedia rules, not a single person has spelled out the specific rules or even the spirit of the rules this is violating. I read over what Wiki is NOT and this article violates none of the spirit of that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.230.145.243 (talk) 04:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

Keep - this can be very beneficial. It is hard many times to find statistics or information on athlete arrests.CarmenBryan 08:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

    • That, to me, would indicate that this would also be violating WP:NOR, if you are correct. GassyGuy 08:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Please see WP:USEFUL. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:25, 8 January 2007 (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.