Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Thorpe false start controversy

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 redirect‎ to Ian Thorpe#2004 Summer Olympics. No consensus to keep the article, but a reasonable consensus to redirect it as an ATD. (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Thorpe false start controversy

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:EVENT. Almost all the coverage is from 2004 when it happened. The incident is already covered in Ian_Thorpe#2004_Summer_Olympics. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's an interesting read, but I agree with the nominator that coverage of the episode appears to have been short-lived, so failing WP:EVENT. I also agree that the Ian Thorpe article effectively covers the incident. I would easily be persuaded to support keeping this article if reliable sources were to be presented that showing that this particular incident resulted in long-term changes to Australian Swimming or to either Thorpe's or Stevens's career. RecycledPixels (talk) 05:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an event that, while it has significant coverage, it doesn't have WP:LASTING on athlete's career, or at least it doesn't seem to have such an effect with the current format of the article. I think it could be easily integrated into Ian Thorpe and probably into Craig Stevens as well. Chiserc (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: The event is covered well in a subsection of the main article, as the nominator notes. This provides the WP:ATD of redirecting -- the content exists elsewhere on Wikipedia, and a redirect would be useful to help readers find it. A stand-alone article seems unnecessary for prior discussed reasons, but redirecting is more policy-compliant here than outright deletion. Vaticidalprophet 00:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose redirect as it's an unlikely search term. LibStar (talk) 10:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems plausible enough it couldn't be speedied, and I'm reasonably confident such a redirect would be kept at RfD if it were created without history. Thorpe's article has other subsection redirects, some of which seem more niche and get fewer views than this does. Vaticidalprophet 13:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Vaticidalprophet. The person who loves reading (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the news coverage seems like it's effectively summarized in the Thorpe article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect not enough WP:SUSTAINED coverage for a separate article. But a sensible enough redirect. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the point in the article where it's already covered Karnataka (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2023 (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.