Talk:Masters M60 long jump world record progression

This page was proposed for deletion by Royal Autumn Crest (talk · contribs) on 30 June 2025.

	This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Athletics Sport of athletics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Athletics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the sport of athletics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and join the discussion. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Potential deletion

User:Royal Autumn Crest proposed this article for deletion. I have not seen that user name in active editing in this subject matter so I will assume they have no knowledge of the subject matter. Yes, there has been little activity since this was created, though it was updated within the last 9 months. Why? Because Tom Patsalis set such an exceptional mark that it took 42 years to surpass it. But that does not diminish the significance of the article and those like it, designed to track and catalog human progress in this well established activity. And it should remain as a repository for future advancements. It's a list. It will get updated again when there is another advancement. Notability does not expire.Trackinfo (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should merge all long jump articles according high jump. Montell 74 (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to the merge to a cumulative long jump progressions article. User:Weia did the labor on the High Jump cumulative page because that is her thing. I created a lot of the individual age group lists, I'm not too interested in performing the labor to consolidate them including a bunch of internal section links, just because one person thinks the individual articles are too small. What I object to is merging into the main article because there is no place to host the historical progression information for all these records and it will get deleted. The main article is way too large already and some people have called for its reduction in size. That sounds like a lot of labor to create a nightmare of multiple articles to then track and edit. Certainly in the process of all these edits, information will get screwed up. All that to satisfy someone's opinion of article sizes, no. What we have now works. The main article is already behind in updates, as a referee I just submitted new records in the last few weeks awaiting ratification. Per the below, I will remove the prod.Trackinfo (talk) 06:48, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trackinfo, with Proposed deletions, you can object to a PROD by either removing the PROD tag or voicing your disagreement on the article talk page like you have done. This stops the deletion. Of course, an editor can then decide to take it to an AFD discussion but in that case you can make your argument to Keep it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:58, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]