Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympic games medal count

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 of the debate was speedy keep. Rob 20:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympic games medal count

template:Olympic games medal count

This list of articles lack sources. Note this is not to delete the template but the article. It hence lacks citations. In turn it becomes original research. According WP:DP this is a candidate for deletion. Please, let us not act to hastilly on this one the idea seems to be good. It just really needs [citations]. It is also list. Perhaps it should be put into wiki source. --CyclePat 16:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Note: The AfD notice has been added to Template:Olympic games medal count, therefore this AfD covers every single Olympic medal count in which that template is used, from 1896 on. See Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Olympic_games_medal_count. Having had a short interchange of messages with the nominator, it is definitely not the template he wants deleted, it's the articles themselves, since none of them explicitly cite sources (although all I think link to Olympic games, which in turn links to the IOC website). Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 20:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

1920 1912 1912 1908 1904 1900 1896



Keep and cite newspapers as sources when they come out each morning. Keep updating the medal count as the results change, however and then verify with the morning papers. Uris 16:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


Keep. I just finished re-doing the 2 major pages (Winter Olympics medal count and Summer Olympics medal count, and I have made sources for each. Each of the pages with a specific olympic date (i.e. 1960 Summer) do not have sources, though. These pages can't be deleted because a lot of hard work has been put into making them. Furthermore, these pages have been in Wikipedia for a long time, so why is it now that they are up for deletion? A source for this information can be found anywhere (IOC, Olympic.org, Sydney2000, etc) so the real problem is finding someone who is willing to find and append valuable sources for each of the other pages, or make an umbrella citation covering all of them. As for now, I think that the deletion should be removed and a tag for sources should be put on every page. --Jared 18:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


Furthermore, what is the purpose of having 4 tags? All that you need is that sources needed tag and the deletion one, because you and I know that this is not a matter of "factual accuracy"; the proble is that there are no sources. I have created a new tag that will act as the source tag. The other two (which are redundant) I am going to remove becuase they are appearing on 50 or more pages (because of the link to the template) and at a time of high traffic due to the current olympics, we don't want Wikipedia first time users to get a bad notion of Wikipedia because there are ugly tags filling up the page. I am not a vandal trying to ruin Wikipedia, I just am thinking of the other thousands of users and viewers. Thanks --Jared 18:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep vote and Comment: Articles on the medal counts at the Olympics are definitely encyclopedic - should not be deleted. Comment: This AfD entry is very unclear as to which specific articles have been nominated for deletion - all articles accessible through the template? (The template is at the top of this section.). —ERcheck @ 19:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I do not know anything more encyclopedic than this, plus the references can be easily found, for instance the 2006 games currently running can be found at http://www.torino2006.org/ENG/OlympicGames/home/index.html. Instead of deleting lets improve this article, isn't there a Olypmic wikiproject? If not ill voulanteer to find all the references for them. Mike (T C) 19:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Tag the individual articles if needed, not the template used in severeal articles, including the list from the ongoing games. It is close to vandalism to disrupt some 50 pages to make a point that some of the articles lack proper sources. ZorroIII 19:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
        • comment: Actually when I nominated them I check all the What links to this article. All of them where unreference except for maybe one. Since then I think there are now two that have references 2006 and 2002. (I think!) Though I nominated this article for deletion. I must agree with the above comment. It is dubiously one of the reasons I nominated this list of articles. Hopefully it will help us realize and perhaps elaborate a little more on verifiability, wp:cite and no original research, which seems to compliment each other and give reason for deletion (according to WP:DP#What to do with a problem page/image/category)--CyclePat 19:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't understand how this is even being considered. —bbatsell ¿? 19:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Possible source for all the pages: http://www.olympic.org/uk/games/past/table_uk.asp?OLGT=2&OLGY=<year>. For example: 1952 for the games in Oslo in 1952. ZorroIII 20:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • yes, that's a good one. If these pages ever do need a source (because ovbiously they don't) this would be perfect. I was looking all morining for a site like that! --Jared 20:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


comment in the talk page of CyclePat as Written by JzG:

Pat, next time you are tempted to tag up an article like that (let alone a template), please do ask around first. If you don't trust me, ask somebody else. Your action was precipitate - to suggest that an Olympic medal table "requires sources" is pressing a point too far since the sources are freely available on the Internet and published every day in the press, whether or not the people using them have accurately transcribed the figures.
Apart from anything else you apparently only half-did the process, and it was the wrong process to start with (should have been miscellany for deletion). Oh, and you tagged entirely the wrong article - you tagged the medal tables template, in effect demanding sources for the existence of the 2006 Winter Olympics. The article you want deleted, Olympic games medal count, does not exist and never did.
Also, you said in the delete request that all it required was citations - that is not grounds for deletion unless you believe that the article is irredeemable in that regard (i.e. original research without prospect of reliable external sources - absurd in the case of an Olympic medal table). If that sounds like "don't be a dick" then I probably got the tone about right :-) Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 18:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep and slap Pat with a wet trout for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Even if these articles required citations - which, if the information is available from the IOC site, cited from the linked article at Olympic games, is a philosophical question of only marginal interest to me, that is absolutely not a grounds for deletion since the problem, if it exists, can be fixed trivially easily without use of admin powers to delete articles, which is the reason this process exists. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 20:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Disruptive nomination. Any of the articles could include a link to the IOC site for that Games as sufficient citation. -- Jonel | Speak 20:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Oi. I'll just say....oi. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 20:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep and further more this is a disruptive nomination worthy of a WP:POINT ban slapping. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 20:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: If you see how much time it took for you to find one year. How much time do you think it will take to find all the other years. Oh! And whatch what your saying there JzG. I might just snap. Please assume good faith in me. I appreciate your summary of the issue. (the one at the top of this nomination, not your comments just above this comment though) I think this label (Template:Medal sources also displayed below), which you removed, sumarizes the issue verry well. One of the reason I didn't put it on every article is my laziness to put the afd on every article. Why do that when you can simply put it on the template that shows up in every article. At the end we can decide on what article are properly cited or not. <grinning/light heartly> You old stuburn dog.  :)
      • I removed the template, it's linked above. You don't include templates in discussions, it screws everything up. Pat, the difficulty or otherwise of digging up individual medal tables is completely irrelevant to whether all the medal tables should be deleted as inherently unverifiable, whcih is in effect what you've asked for. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 20:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

--CyclePat 20:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment One question, how the hell is the olympic metal counts "original research". Honestly this is the biggest stretch I've ever seen. Since Cyclepat may not know what original research is I'll give an exmaple. Lets say I am a medical biology student (hey what do you know I am!!) and I do a cause and effect study, for example does deodorent cause breast cancer (dont laugh, someone actually tried to claim this), and instead of publishing in a peer reviewed publication, I publish it on Wikipedia. This would then be original research, and be deleted for it. Olympic metal counts are NOT original research. I am posting this to WP:AN as well since this is WP:POINT. Mike (T C) 20:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, WP:POINT violation. Failing to cite sources does not make an article original research, and is not grounds for deletion. CyclePat has made at least one other bad faith/frivolous AFD nomination in the last few hours. Finally, adding the AFD tag to the template hides the AFD notice at the bottom of the article, rather than displaying it properly. It should be removed from the template as vandalism; if the user is fool enough to want to nominate these articles for deletion, put the tags on all the articles, so they display properly and can be seen by users as required! Monicasdude 20:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
What makes that anymore different then saying 2 + 2 = 4? (original research)... The lack of sources may mean this information comes from such original research (or attending the event) (Or tabulating the facts to give a result!) It makes me assume, where there is no citation, that this is an individuals recollection or a tablature from a source (Original research). However if the source is properly cited we may be able to verify this. I'm not saying this is original research... well actually I am... But It may not be. (which the odd are probably very high... I hope!)... In that case it should be easy to substantiate all these claims. Otherwise, instead of claiming I have some bone to kick, why don't you try helping out to find a source to substantiate the unverified information. <walking away... back to researching> Now... How many medals where from 1976 or 1980... etc... --CyclePat 20:44, 12 February 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.