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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of 10 meter diving platforms in the United States[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like WP:OR. And the diving platforms itself are non-notable, as none of the platforms have their own article... The Banner talk 03:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are very few of these, and it is reasonable to provide a list of them. The comment that no single diving platform has a separate article is irrelevant; there is no requirement that individual items in a list must be separately Wikipedia-article-notable. This is a reasonable effort by a brand new editor, with references, which should be encouraged. Deleting the article would eliminate ALL of the editor's contributions/edits in Wikipedia. Let's not do this. Give Wikipedia a chance to grow, instead of turning away every single new contributor. Perhaps the topic could be broadened and the article could be re-titled eventually, after this is further developed, but that is a matter for Talk page discussion and organic development. It seems fine as a topic to me. "Looks like OR" sounds pretty mean. Look, this is personal for the editor(s) involved: the AFD nomination is saying their work is so bad it must be completely deleted, which is not the case at all. --do ncr am 04:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I created the article I would obviously like to keep it. I believe that if this list qualifies as Original Research, then almost all lists on Wikipedia should also be deleted. E.g. List of reservoirs and dams in Australia, List of Main Street Programs in the United States, List of mountain peaks of Colorado. I agree there could be more information added to the article, but would argue that 10m diving platforms are notable in the same way mountains and dams are. Additionally, I tried to include as many sources as possible for stadiums which do not have their own article in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. --A Bad Deli Ivy (talk) 07:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is like "list of people with one ear" or "list of left-handed gynecologists", a trivial list of Olympic-sized diving boards? Do we track lists of FIFA-approved football pitches? Olympic-length pools? FIBA basketball courts in the US? The personal and possibly hurt feelings of an editor are not relevant, as no one owns a Wikipedia article, so sorry, but this is trivia. ValarianB (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems like a genuine effort to share information that may be useful to some people. Jeff Quinn (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since this is a list of a specific item that is required for an Olympic sport and the total number seems to be relatively small making them rare. Agree it would certainly be useful to some people. MB 01:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no view, except to say that WP:LISTN specifically says if "...the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is exactly the kind of standalone list that is notable, with sources to establish the details. Alansohn (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness to the nominator, the absence of a main article such as 10 meter diving platform could be construed as a sign that this form of diving platform is not especially notable. But again, I've no !vote to make, here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected 10 meter diving platform to diving platform. There is a main article now. And it is reasonable to have the list of the 10-meter ones split out of the main article. --do ncr am 03:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessary list. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Shouldn't we be evaluating the merits of the article and not focusing on whether the author's feelings are going to be hurt? Some ofI the comments are downright patronizing. Based on the article, I say keep. There aren't that many 10-meter platforms in the US which is surprising to me since it's a regular NCAA event. They are also difficult to discover--colleges want to talk about their swimming facilities but diving seems to get overlooked.Glendoremus (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the reason given for deletion, that this is original research, is invalid. The information is quite referenceable, and the list is potentially useful. It may however be a synthesis, as I cannot see that anyone else has published such a list before. If for some strange reason we have to get rid of this topic, I would suggest merging to 10 meter diving platform, which could become a standalone article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting opinion but as far as I know there is not a single article about an individual 10 meter diving platform. And as far as I know, there is not a single article about an individual diving tower. What you suggest to merge into Diving platform, would make the article severely USA=biased, so that does not look like a valid option either. The Banner talk 08:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's only a listing and the Keep comments emulate "It's important", "It's a genuine effort", "This is the kind of article", and "We have few of these", but since the actual information here is nothing but a mini-sized list with a few tossed sources, that's not significant, and it's something easily best suited for another larger article. At this basis, even if it's Olympics-included, it's still only a listing and is questionable for the needed improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are rare enough that a list of them is notable and not cruft, and references do exist. The current state of the article is irrelevant. Smartyllama (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2017 (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.