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.
Wikipedia is not a statistics database. It seems entirely random to list the top 50 in a given event, with an international final only consisting of 8 or 9 competitors, whereas the wider field reaching as far down as top 50 are never talked about as an interconnected group. Why not top 25? Or top 100? Category:Year rankings in athletics is still a fledgling project, so it's time to nip it in the bud. Geschichte (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, I completely agree with @Geschichte's comments above, however that isn't an argument for deletion. If we want to make the article only about the top 8 or top 25, then please edit the article to do that, and let's work on it together.
The top two or three 60 metres sprinters in any given year are very frequently talked about as a group, as the 60 metres is the marquee event of indoor athletics – by far the most popular and documented event as the shortest in all of athletics. It's also important because it's covered as a bellwether for the outdoor season, as proven by the fact that leading the 2021 60 m was arguably Marcel Jacobs' biggest accomplishment before winning the 2021 Olympic 100 m title later that year. Despite there being no World Athletics Indoor Championships in 2021, there was still a men's and women's European Championship, a NCAA Championship and an entire indoor World Tour that had many world class men's and women's 60 m races. Here are some relevant articles focusing on the 60m during that season:
Reply Individual competitions being covered or Marcell Jacobs performing well do not lend relevance to a list of unrelated performers. This is a list and therefore the athletes in it have to be covered as a group, otherwise it fails WP:NOT. Habst provides no policy-based reason to keep the article, and instead showcases the same synthesizing reasoning as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 World Youth Championships in Athletics – Boys' javelin throw: A medium wrote about the world ranking once, therefore Wikipedia must list a large portion of the world ranking. Geschichte (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte, I really appreciate and in fact agree with your arguments about the top 50 being unwarranted. But again, while that is a good reason for limiting the scope of the article that isn't a valid reason for deletion under P&G. None of the articles I linked mention world ranking, nor does this article; the world ranking is different than the event as a whole in that year.
Looking at WP:NOT, I think you're referring to WP:NOTCATALOG prong 2, which specifically carves out, Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. WP:NOT doesn't say anything about lists having to be covered as a group (the word "group" only appears 4 times on that page in other contexts). I think the more relevant policy is WP:NLIST, which specifically says Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability, and I discussed the navigational/informational aids (in world lead lists and event lists) above. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 12:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Limiting the scope of the article". What article? There is no article here, just two statistical lists swiped from WA. WP:NOTSTATS applies, and as a list its informational purposes run afoul of WP:SYNTH. Yes, athletics fans understand them and can interpret them, which is why several statistic websites, including the article's only sources, provide year lists just fine. Geschichte (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte, I understand you're being sarcastic, but of course it is a list article because it contains a list. The fact that it's unexplained per WP:NOTSTATS means that we should explain it; this is only an argument for deletion if you think that it's impossible to reasonably explain the subject.
WP:SYNTH does not apply here, taking the two main points:
Does it combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source? No, the article doesn't reach any "conclusion" not stated by sources.
Does it combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source? No, same reasoning.
The important policy point here for WP:NLIST is the navigational and informational aid, as when someone goes to the 2021 European Athletics Indoor Championships – Men's 60 metres page, it's helpful to click the "world lead" button and see the landscape of the 60 metres in that year leading in to the competition.
Also, I think that your argument (which, to be fair, I fully agree with except for I don't think it is a reason for deletion) applies to all 72 pages in Category:Year rankings in athletics. Can you edit the nomination to include them all, so we won't have to re-hash this conversation 71 other times in the future? Thanks, --Habst (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This consists mainly of text lifted from another source, and as such it may violate copyright. In any case, why limit it to 2020/21? Are no more recent data available? Athel cb (talk) 10:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Athel cb, the reason why it is limited to 2020–21 is because the 60 metres international yearly circuit is primarily contested from December to March (i.e. overlapping two calendar years). For an overview of all years, you can just click on the 60 metres page but this is limited to just one season of competition. For example 2020–21 NFL playoffs is limited to just one season of the NFL Playoffs while NFL playoffs covers all seasons.
So far as your first paragraph is concerned, OK. So far as the second is concerned I think you need to do more to avoid copyright violation. Athel cb (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Athel cb, I don't want to derail the conversation too much but my understanding is that simple lists of sports results (in this case, names and times) without any element of creative curation (the times are simply listed from fastest to slowest with no advanced analysis done) is not copyrightable in the U.S., not falling into any of the categories here (source). FWIW, there is actually an identical list independently compiled on WP:Tilastopajahere so it's not like this data is unique to World Athletics. Simply Googling each name and time in quotes shows that most entries have associated news coverage about them, so it wouldn't be too difficult to add a cite for each row. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Reviewing this discussion again, I don't see a consensus but I have some questions that were brought up by editors here. First, Top 60 does seem like an arbitrary cut-off point. But, as mentioned, this could be addressed through editing. And it does seem like Wikipedia has a variety of articles like this like Athletics at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's decathlon as mentioned so having an article with a table of sports results has an established place on the project. So, what I'm wondering is about this page move suggested, would editors arguing for Delete be okay if this content was moved to exist under the umbrella of a relevant WikiProject while the content was edited and improved? This would be with the caveat that the page couldn't just be moved back to main space. What do you think? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – I perfectly understand the nomination and the problems that this list presents, but I consider that the 100m race (60m during the pandemic period) is the noblest in athletics, and a list of best times is not unnecessarily just a random list like in some sport with less notability. I see potential/logic in the article. Svartner (talk) 04:24, 8 April 2024 (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.