Deletion of Athletics at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Men's 100 metres (2nd nomination)

Comment: to Athletics at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Results. As per my previous comments, the best approach would be to merge sport-level result articles. This is a solution that already has form Athletics at the 2011 Pan Arab Games – Results|in other areas and also arranges material in a better fashion than a direct merge to the main articles (Athletics at the 2009 Southeast Asian Games|e.g.). The principal reason given for deletion () explicitly promotes such a two-article approach – one for specific results and one for overall discussion – through it's comparison of Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012 and United States presidential election, 2012. The specific applicable point of "NOTSTATSBOOK" appears to be #3 ("Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles.") Arrangement of the content in a sport-level results article resolves both these issues and is within the spirit of that guideline. The content of the nominated article is not confusing by any means, though there should be greater explanatory text (which is more a content issue rather than an inclusion issue
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTSTATSBOOK)

Comment: all individual athletics articles of this competition, and keep only the general listing at the Athletics article, as proposed. The individual articles are excessive per  # 3
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: I come at this from the perspective of preserving information.  We have certainly deemed international sports festivals and their results to be notable.  Downwardly merging into specific sports, particularly in the sport of Athletics which we are discussing here as a header, will create a huge article.  How do you make it more palatable?  By removing information.  That has already been done here to create the list of medalists.  That follows the standard protocol.  But we have much more information to present, and the event specific article is the place to retain it, to keep the main article from being too cumbersome or worse yet, (poof) making the information disappear.  As I probe wikipedia, the older the article, the less information we have.  Sources dry up, organizing committee web sites shut down after the shine of the event wears off.  Former details that were on paper go behind paywalls or are stored on microfiche.  Wikipedia, and the efforts of the hard working editors who post this information is one of the best places to retain this information.  I don't want to bring out a  ball and predict these athletes will someday be notable.  You never know.  They all have achieved a level of notability by representing their country in an international competition.  Are we going to discriminate and say South East Asia is less important than say, the the Pan American states, now and forever?  Essentially that is a precedent you are establishing, that none of this information is ever going to be useful.  These athletes were the best their countries had to send to this international competition.  Next year, who will be the best athlete these countries have to offer to send to the Olympics?  Odds are, these same individuals, which will guarantee their notability.  And when wikipedia creates an article, all will have is a stub reporting that they showed up at the Olympics.  Where did these people come from, what did they do to merit their selection to the Olympics?  We HAD the information, we chose to delete it, the website goes down and it is lost forever.  Do I need to show you hundreds, perhaps thousands of wikipedia stub articles of Olympic athletes, that we know absolutely nothing about except they showed up at the Olympics?  Look at María Caridad Colón, an Olympic gold medalist in the last 35 years.  Without mention of the equatable Ibero-American Championships international championships, her article would be one sentence.  Until I created it 26 years after the event, World Champion Yekaterina Fesenko was a red link because I assume nobody could find information about her.  Wikipedia is not paper, the cost of retaining information is so small as to be incalculable.  We are here to provide information.  There is no damage being created by us having and retaining the information, currently sourced, already entered on this page and any other page like it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: As part of a slow systematic way of deleting the whole thing, bit-by-bit. WP is |not paper, so there's no real reason why we can't include this info. To say it "can be handled in Athletics at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games" defeats the object of having seperate article for '''all''' events at similar sporting events. What really needs to happen is an  at  (in conjuction with other projects, such as WP:OLYMPICS, WP:ATHLETICS, etc) to define notablity of results pages for multi-sporting events that are not the Olympics, Commonwealth Games, Asian Games, etc
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPAPER||WP:RFC||WP:MSE)

Comment: The rational for deletion is identical to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pencak silat at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Women's 65 kg, mainly that the subpages for this level of event is just too much detail.  All that is necessary is Athletics at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games which as all the medal winners. WikiPedia is not a  with few or any of the athletes being notable.  Similar AfDs include for example  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Asian Wrestling Championships – Men's freestyle 57 kg
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTSTATSBOOK)