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. Nishkid64 19:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Summer Olympics medals count by International Organization[edit]

2004 Summer Olympics medals count by International Organization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

From the first sentence of the article: "This is a listing of the 2004 Summer Olympics medal counts if the countries of various International organizations pooled their medals." However, medals are not pooled according to international organisations. I have no objection to such a listing in someone's userspace, but it does not belong in the article namespace. This is unencyclopedic trivia. Aecis^Bravado 00:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article apparently survived AFD once before, in August 2004. -- Plutor ^talk 19:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That doesn't invalidate this current discussion, does it? That previous discussion took place during the Games themselves, when nationalistic emotions were running high. Andrwsc 19:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't, nor did I mean to imply that it did. If I thought it did, I would have voted keep instead of simply commenting. I was simply pointing it out for reference. -- Plutor ^talk 20:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- Aecis^Bravado 00:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ganfon 00:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. --Dennisthe2 00:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bigtop 00:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't see any relevance nor do I know or foresee any similar page for other Olympics. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 00:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In addition to this article, four other similar articles (2004 Summer Olympics medal count for Central Asian countries, European Union member states at the 2004 Summer Olympics, 2000 Summer Olympics medals per capita, and 1996 Summer Olympics medals per capita) all ought to be deleted for any number of reasons, whether it be WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, or even WP:LISTCRUFT. They seem to survive AFD when the discussion takes place shortly after the Games, when many new editors get involved and put nationalistic pride ahead of common sense. Hopefully, this discussion will conclude that articles like these are not encyclopaedic. Andrwsc 00:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Davidbober 00:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. per nom and Andrwsc. → JARED ^(t)  02:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Arjun 03:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transfer: I've seen these Olympic medal articles but the things are usually in a template form. I'dd say the precendence are telling me to keep it. But my wiki rules on referencing are saying delete. Needs referencing! --CyclePat 05:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and/or merge with existing articles. Per nomination. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 07:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom ThrustVectoring 08:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, original research. Andrwsc, feel free to nominate the other lists. Punkmorten 08:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - original research, pure and simple. - fchd 08:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Original research and POV forking. I've redirected the other articles Andrwsc mentioned; if anyone still feels they should be completely deleted as well, please feel free (they're not exactly the most useful redirects...). -- Jonel | Speak 13:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, original research, per nom. Terence Ong 13:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete original research.-- danntm ^T _C 15:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not OR since the medal counts for international country groupings are discussed in the press and in scholarly papers. NPOV is not an issue here, nor is POV forking. This is a good way to present the information, because if not we get the same list every four years with the US, Russia and China in the top three. That doesn't tell you much, does it?--JJay 17:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But no one does group them this way. The medals are in another article. Barring that, most of the countries are in the UN, so having it there is pointless and confusing. To put it in perspective, sure, having my phone number on wikipedia along with my friends could be helpful, as I would fine them disorganized in the phone book, but does that mean we should have them here? Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 00:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, but some people do group them this way. Such as the EU, which held a press conference to discuss their medal wins at Athens. [1]. Asean medal wins have been analyzed in the Journal of Sports Economics [2]. Etc. To put this in perspective for you, people do care about grouping olympic medal wins. They then go onto to publish the results. That allows us to do these types of lists, which are no different really than lists such as List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita per hour. Why do it? Because unlike your phone number and that of your friends, people actually are interested in the topic and find the information useful. --JJay 03:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything that's sourced can be mentioned in the 2004 Summer Olympics medal count article, like I just put the EU claim into it. Until I see a reliable source that pits the UN against the G8, I'm going to maintain that this table and others like it are original research. The paper about the ASEAN nations does not do that; it merely says that southeast Asian countries don't do well (and gives suggestions on fixing that). It doesn't sum the medals of those nations anywhere, nor make any mention of other international organization's results. -- Jonel | Speak 04:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any links to press or scholarly papers that discuss these groupings? Does the IOC or any reliable source publish such a list? Such a list might sway me to keep, but even then, it smacks of indiscriminate information. Delete - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 00:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Bucketsofg 19:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, unless shown to not be original research. - Aagtbdfoua 20:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 20:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom: "medals are not pooled according to international organisations:.--Yannismarou 20:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JJay Jcuk 20:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 00:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - see my rationale in response to Jjay. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 00:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Original Research, POV Fork. Resolute 03:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - i'm from a country which is a member of the ASEAN and APEC, and such international organizations are political/economic in nature. my country hosted the latest ASEAN summit and sports was never in the agenda. so i'm for deleting this article. this article has very little chance of getting into the ASEAN summit coffee tables, unless the Beijing Olympics will have a direct effect on the Southeast Asian economies. --RebSkii 18:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because most Int'l Organizations have nothing to do with Olympics -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 18:20, 20 January 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.