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. Black Kite (talk) 09:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Tour de France King of the Mountains[edit]

2013 Tour de France King of the Mountains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This doesn't belong in a general encyclopedia. It's great stuff for a website devoted to bicycling, but it's pretty crufty for our purposes. There's little encyclopedic import to an exhaustive accounting of the placings on each hill climb. We do have a place for the description of the race as a whole while ongoing, which is where efforts such as these should be expended. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 09:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I believe this page is not completely redundant. The mountains classification for each tour is unique and thus deserves a page devoted to it. The placings on each hill climb offer the chance to chart a rider's progress through the competition and analyse how the classification was won or lost. Due to the nature of the lists of placings on climbs being long and many, I don't think they would fit well on the 2013 Tour de France, Stage 1 to Stage 11 page, and as previously stated, deserve their own page. I created the page because I was searching for this information displayed on one page, clearly and concisely, and I believe there are others like me.
Some reasons why this page warrants a place on Wikipedia:

I did not suggest that the page was redundant to anything, merely that it is well outside the scope of a general encyclopedia. This is the kind of page I would expect to find on Cycling News or CQ Ranking or some other website devoted to bicycling. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 11:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • To Green-eyed girl, I had not heard the word crufty before. Upon looking up the word I noted it can be jargon for anything redundant. Anyway, I understand your meaning now. But I want to state again that Wikipedia is not just a "general encyclopedia" but can be a specialised encyclopedia too. I do understand that this particular topic is perhaps a little too specialised. Smitchlovesfunk (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean Mountains classification in the Tour de France? --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 11:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That list already exists at King of the Mountains. And I'm not sure I understand the recommendation to rename the page and rewrite it as something else, for which the history of the present page is irrelevant – that seems to be a deletion and a creation. Dricherby (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I also don't understand. Smitchlovesfunk (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well in that case delete. Wikipedia is WP:NOTTHESPORTSSECTIONOFTHENEWSPAPER. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even specialized Tour books do not give this information. I have been looking for the complete mountain classification rankings for the years 1933 to 1949 for some years now, and no book provides them, and I am doing a difficult process of recalculating them from descriptions in newspapers. This a counter-argument for your first reason.
  • Your second reason: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", the "Excessive listings of statistics" section. For me, the article in this discussion is a clear example of that section.
  • And thirdly: my expectation is different from yours (I am not saying it is better): I would not expect this kind of page on Wikipedia, but I would hope for an external link to this information. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 11:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get the point it is perhaps overly specialised information, but your interest in it suggests there are people who want easy access to this information.
  • We might have to agree to disagree on this point. I don't think it falls under the category "Excessive listings of statistics" because that section states: "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles" - I don't think these lists reduce the readability of the article because these list ARE the article. In addition, the article "contains sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader".
  • I accept that what I expect to find on Wikipedia is different from what others expect to find. Smitchlovesfunk (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Dricherby, just because it has never been done before is no reason not to start. However I take your point that it is perhaps routine coverage, nonetheless I believe it notable. I had also started preparing a page for the points classification for this tour too. I guess that will receive a similar reaction will it not? Smitchlovesfunk (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfDs last a week, but can be extended by a week at a time until consensus is reached, if necessary. Note also that AfDs are not votes and "keeps" accompanied by reasoning that doesn't address the issues carry little weight. Please see WP:AFDEQ and the subsequent sections of that page for more information on the process. Dricherby (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Unless more people are happy to keep the page I am happy to put the lists onto a page somewhere on Wikidata[2] and put a link to it on the 2013 Tour de France page. Smitchlovesfunk (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request. Having given this some more thought I would like to request the page to be kept and not deleted. Let me collect the reasons that have been cited for deletion and offer my thoughts:

I think if the article is kept then it should be given the name 2013 Tour de France Mountains classification. Even though I think 2013 Tour de France Climber classifictions would be more in following with notation on letour.com[[3]] the use of the first name is more in keeping with notation used on Wikipedia, e.g. Mountains classification in the Tour de France. Alternative. If I haven't managed to convince you then what about a List of climbs in the 2013 Tour de France article containing just the results of each climb? The details from the article will then be moved to a section in the 2013 Tour de France page. Smitchlovesfunk (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. Smitchlovesfunk (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passing WP:GNG requires substantial coverage, whereas WP:ROUTINE says that "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." Nobody is disputing that the 2013 Tour de France and the climbing classification in general are notable. The question that must be addressed is whether the results of every climb in the 2013 Tour de France have sufficient independent notability to warrant an article on that specific subject. Dricherby (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And WP:MERCY isn't a reason to keep. Dricherby (talk) 21:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps, but the alternative is that those voting for deletion haven't got a clue about bike racing and ought to really, in the nicest possible way, just go away. Not every cyclist or team in the tour is out to win the yellow jersey. Some are going for green (with a sprint finisher), some are going for the polka dots. Some just hope for a few stage wins. This is pretty important, and as long as it is completed, I can see no reason why it would be deleted excepting profound inanity that is regularly displayed by groups of Wikipedia users. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think that this kind of response helps your credibility. Nobody in favor of deletion has given any reason to think that they don't understand bike racing. Nobody wants this article deleted because they don't like it. If you want to help this article, stop attacking strawmen, read the discussion, and read why some people think this article should be deleted. Don't guess for their reasons.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 14:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • It does help YOUR credibility if your nomination makes reference to a valid deletion argument, and you don't pathetically try to respond to every point made by everyone who sensibly speaks against you. Please try to provide a valid reason for deletion, WP:IDON'TLIKEIT doesn't count. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please read more carefully. It is not my nomination, I didn't respond to every point made by everyone, and I provided several reasons for deletion. I have never said "I don't like it, so delete it". I even explicitly said that "I like this", see below. If you want to know the reasons for deletion, don't guess. Read. The outcome of this discussion is not fixed yet, if you give convincing reasons that the article should be kept, it will be kept. But sofar, all you did was saying that the article should be kept, because everybody who says "I don't like it" is wrong, even though nobody said "I don't like it". That does not help the discussion. Why do you think the article belongs on Wikipedia? Why do you think the previously given reasons for deletion are wrong? --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 13:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I like this, but I still support deletion. I wish that this kind of information would be in all relevant books, but it is not; the most you'll find is a list of climbs, the first to that top and the final classification. Not all information that is given in this article. And I don't see anybody in this conversation saying "I don't like it"...--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 06:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You keep mentioning the fact that this info is not found in relevant books on the subject. But to me that is more of a reason to include it here! Wikipedia has the privilege of not being limited in space the way a physical book is; this should allow it to be more specialized and contain information that is not included in books. Smitchlovesfunk (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usually, people use an encyclopaedia for general reference and specialist publications for detailed coverage. It would be unusual for an encyclopaedia to carry more detailed coverage than the specialist publications. Of course, that doesn't mean it can't happen but it does suggest (to me, at least) that this is beyond the encyclopaedia's remit. Dricherby (talk) 12:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it won't be on the Tour website after 2014, since they only have a one-year archive. Where is verifiability then? Dricherby (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that verifiability is no issue here; there is no RS that puts all this information together in one book/website. But for each stage separately, the information is presented in multiple sources (not only the official tour-website, but also secondary sources). It could all be sourced with about 20 different links. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 13:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added references (from sources normally considered RS) for the first stage. On those websites, all articles since 1995 (when they started online) are still found, so verifiability is fine.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 13:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 02:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for the question of whether Wikipedia is the right place for this, the reality is that WP does sport more thoroughly than other topics. I am not comfortable with that. I do not agree with a policy that accords automatic notability to professional sportspeople and denies it to the chief executive of major corporations, or the skimpy coverage (if you will excuse the pun) of women's clothing, not a topic I understand. But the answer is usually to improve WP in those areas. The 2013 Wimbledon Championships Mixed Doubles competition has an article of its own because that is the best way of covering the topic rather than mixing it up in another article or just recording the winners. Those not interested will not read it, but that is not a ground for deletion. The same applies here. --AJHingston (talk) 10:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't accord automatic notability to professional sportspeople or, in fact, to anyone. Professional sportspeople have a presumption of notability, meaning that it is assumed that sufficient sources will exist; the actual notability still depends on there being sources. Since the media writes a huge amount about professional sport, those sources usually do, in fact, exist. In contrast, there's not much coverage of corporate executives except for the very largest companies and much of the coverage that does exist is heavily promotional in tone so not a useful source. So, yes, Wikipedia is biased towards sport rather than business but this is a reflection of the world at large. Dricherby (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The principles under which Wikipedia operates were not handed down on tablets of stone (any more than the constitutions of states or the rules under which sport is played), they have evolved to shape Wikipedia into what the community chooses it to be. Notability is measured in ways that tends to bias it toward certain media coverage, but these are only ways of comparing like with like (eg whether television newsreaders fall above or below the bar), and they are agreed not to be relevant to much of WP, for example scientific topics. Remember, WP is not a directory of things found on the internet or the popular press. Where existing notability criteria are applied, they do not always work well for 'the world at large' and it can certainly be argued that commercial organisations and women's fashions are examples of that. Because sports pages are accepted for notability purposes, in practice professional sportspeople automatically get in if they meet sports appropriate criteria. Coverage of clothes in the media does not count in the same way, any more than the number of employees or the turnover of a commercial organisation both of which can be said to be relevant to the real world. Of course, the Tour de France King of the Mountains competition (however described) gets enormous media coverage, so by that measure notability cannot be challenged. --AJHingston (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say you've done well. Two of those links (inrng and velovoices) provide the kind of coverage that I think makes the article notable. I did not expect that such articles would exist, but you've proven me wrong, and I changed my !vote to keep. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 19:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. The article on roadcyclinguk.com is a preview of this year's KotM competition, focusing on riders the site thinks are likely to win; it says nothing about the individual climbs and I don't see how it establishes notability of the lists of results presented in the article. inrng.com is not a reliable source so does not establish notability: it's the blog that's unconnected with the author's day job [4] (also, he says he crashes pieces out in a few minutes, which "probably explains the typos, links that don’t work or factual bungles"). sbbcolumns.co.uk is a blog aggregator so doesn't establish notability (and, again, only discusses riders felt likely to become KotM, and then only briefly). The Guardian article is irrelevant because it says nothing at all about this year's KotM. Finally, velovoices.com describes itself as a fan blog so is not a reliable source. Dricherby (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC) See my !vote below for comment on struck text. Dricherby (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement at all that sources, including those used for notability, should be in English. Those following the TV coverage in the UK will be of no doubt as to the notability of this competition, but most of the coverage will be in other languages, including French. --AJHingston (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The leaders of the general time ranking, the general points ranking, the best climber ranking and the general young riders ranking must wear:
• in the first case, the Yellow jersey;
• in the second case, the green jersey;
• In the third case, the white and red polka dot jersey;
• in the fourth case, the white jersey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewdpcotton (talk • contribs) 09:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is now rather stale and ought to e closed. 2.96.226.24 (talk) 05:01, 22 July 2013 (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.
More