Testwiki:Articles for deletion/List of judoka
From testwiki
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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 No consensus. WikiProject Martial arts may be a better venue for this discussion. — Edokter • Talk • 14:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Template:La (delete) – (View log)
An unnecessary list (categories and List of Olympic medalists in judo do the job better) with no inclusion criteria (any judoka, or "any judoka with a Wikipedia article" could be on the list, which renders it useless - again compared to a category). The few judoka who've had lasting impact, such as the founder of the sport, should be mentioned in prose in the article judo. In short, this fails Wikipedia:Lists#Purposes of lists in that it's not needed for information, not navigative and not developmental. Punkmorten (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete perhaps could be a category but no clear inclusion criteria here--much too broad as stands. Cf. List of celebrity judoka. JJL (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- There already is a Category:Judoka. Punkmorten (talk) 09:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —JJL (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge with List of celebrity judoka, don't need two lists but this is the better name. --Nate1481(t/c) 09:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Why is this the better name?? What should be merged? Punkmorten (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- List of celebrity judoka has criteria for inclusion:
- "Having an entry in Wikipedia is not sufficient notability criteria for inclusion on this list.
- "People on this list must be notable for factors other than their judo expertise.
- "As a guide, to be included on this list, the person must have either done a credible amount
- "of judo training, or else have done it in front of a large audience.
- List of judoka has no criteria. jmcw (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- List of celebrity judoka has criteria for inclusion:
- Strong keep but delete around 90% of the entries and rename it to List of notable judoka. I have added notability criteria, but that is difficult to do as usual. People who are notable enough for inclusion may or may not be included in the body of the judo article (like Koizumi), and keep people like Geesink on the list. Someone who is most knowledgeable could start deleting now. --David Broadfoot (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Now it's even worse: Your criteria are completely arbitrary! Punkmorten (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- The criteria for whether any sentence should be included in any Wikipedia article is just as arbitrary. It's not possible to define "notable" succinctly. I have defined criteria for why people should not be included on that list. Wikipedians are smart enough to work from that. --David Broadfoot (talk) 06:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, it's not. WP:BIO have pretty clear inclusion criteria. Generally, consensus decides what goes on here. May I remind you that your criteria are not based on consensus, it's just something you made up. The criteria are "major contribution to judo" or "achieved significant results" - completely vague. Wikipedia doesn't need lists without good inclusion criteria. Another thing: Who, do you imagine, will work on the list? Almost nobody on Wikipedia cares about judo. Guess who created some 97% of the judo biographies here. Punkmorten (talk) 09:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- (1)But the criteria for inclusion on this list is MUCH stronger than required by WP:BIO so it's of no help. (2) to argue that my criteria are not based on consensus and are "just made up" is quite specious. That is equivalent to claiming that every contribution to Wikipedia must be subject to consensus before being placed on the page. (3) The list will need very little work to maintain. How often does a "notable" judoka come along? Your argument is more applicable to lists of gold medalists. Let's delete all those lists first. (4) As to your "who cares about judo" argument, we might as well delete the main judo article on that basis. --David Broadfoot (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, it's not. WP:BIO have pretty clear inclusion criteria. Generally, consensus decides what goes on here. May I remind you that your criteria are not based on consensus, it's just something you made up. The criteria are "major contribution to judo" or "achieved significant results" - completely vague. Wikipedia doesn't need lists without good inclusion criteria. Another thing: Who, do you imagine, will work on the list? Almost nobody on Wikipedia cares about judo. Guess who created some 97% of the judo biographies here. Punkmorten (talk) 09:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- The criteria for whether any sentence should be included in any Wikipedia article is just as arbitrary. It's not possible to define "notable" succinctly. I have defined criteria for why people should not be included on that list. Wikipedians are smart enough to work from that. --David Broadfoot (talk) 06:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Now it's even worse: Your criteria are completely arbitrary! Punkmorten (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- delete We already have, as noted above, category: judoka RogueNinjatalk 15:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- But that is a list of all judoka, which doesn't help people look for what is historically interesting and notable. --David Broadfoot (talk) 07:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Who decides what is "historically interesting and notable"? Punkmorten (talk) 09:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- But that is a list of all judoka, which doesn't help people look for what is historically interesting and notable. --David Broadfoot (talk) 07:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge the "celebrity" into this one and rename to "Comprehensive List of notable..."--Sallicio 06:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- If they were merged, we'd have to do so under two major headings: "Notable judoka" and "Celebrity judoka". I dislike the idea of merging because the "Celebrity" list trivialises the important "Notable" list, and I can't see the point of merging just for the sake of having one fewer Wikipedia page. --David Broadfoot (talk) 07:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- The "Notable" list is not important. Punkmorten (talk) 09:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- If they were merged, we'd have to do so under two major headings: "Notable judoka" and "Celebrity judoka". I dislike the idea of merging because the "Celebrity" list trivialises the important "Notable" list, and I can't see the point of merging just for the sake of having one fewer Wikipedia page. --David Broadfoot (talk) 07:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. This fails to show a purpose sufficient to justify its existence. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - can we re-list this to get a consensus? I see none here. Right now, I would default close to keep, and I would keep anyway for all the blue links, but I want to hear from others. Bearian (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I can see the need for this discussion to be carried further, as there are strong arguments on both sides. Perhaps 5 more days will sort this out, perhaps not! Procedural, abstaining from opinion Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- What does "relisting" mean? I presume we are to respond to the original proposal all over again, ignoring any prior comments (particularly because they relate to out-of-date versions of the article)? --David Broadfoot (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep and rename to List of notable judoka. Regarding the link provided to Wikipedia:Lists#Purposes of lists, please note the first sentence of that link states "Redundancy between lists and categories is beneficial because they are synergistic, and is covered in the guideline Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes." Responding to the claims: (1) It does serve a useful informational purpose - that of listing the top several dozen judoka, and furthermore, it is "annotated" (one of the desirable properties of such lists, and one reason why Categories do *not* "do the job"); (2) it *is* navigable - I cannot understand how you can make that claim. --David Broadfoot (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete I went back and forth on this one. What pushed me to delete was the opinion that this page is trying to do the same thing that a category would accomplish. The category system seems perfect to accomplish what this page is trying to do.GtstrickyTalk or C 20:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- never mind. WP:CSL applies to my prior answer. So back over the fence I go to Weak Keep GtstrickyTalk or C 20:43, 22 February 2008 (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.