Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 Winter Olympics (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete both. No prejudice about articles being created when reliably sourced information about who is actually bidding is available, which, as bids are approved by the appropriate nation up to 15 years before the date of the games, which will probably be some time around next winter for the 2022 Winter Games, and around 2009 for the 2024 Summer one. Proto::► 10:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2022 Winter Olympics

2022 Winter Olympics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
2024 Summer Olympics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Found speedy-tagged, but somehow this was already afd'd and kept with no consensus here in April, partly on the basis that the 2024 article was kept here in March. Honestly, this is all terrible crystal-balling and both articles contain almost nothing but unsourced speculation (every single sentence in the 2022 article has a {{fact}} tag!). Recreate these in 5-10 years, not needed now. Opabinia regalis 05:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete both per nom. Maybe in a few years these can be recreated. TJ Spyke 05:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as total speculation; these articles can say nothing of interest for at least the next five years. Let them be recreated when bidding cities have been confirmed and not before. (aeropagitica) 05:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Alas, the 2024 article actually has citations and some relatively meaningful discussion. The Olympics-unlike, say, the next Steven Spielberg movie-do get put into motion 15 years or more before the fact and articles like this should be dealt with as such. It isn't really ridiculous crystal balling. If someone wants to clean up the 2022 article, please do so, but Keep them both.--Dmz5 06:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: it is crystal-balling and mind-reading.
    1. If the world explodes in 2021, none of this will happen. If it hasn't happened yet, it's inherently counter-factual. That kind of defies "fact".
    2. The fact that a country is considering a bid is not really relevant. Countries which make bids may be relevant, but considering a bid is not particularly of interest, and only in the loosest sense verifiable.
Once real, relevant information comes out, it can be posted. - Che Nuevara 06:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I appreciate your opinion, but I don't understand why a sourced statement that a city is considering a bid is not worth including here. If the world blows up tomorrow then there won't be any movies released in December but we still have articles on movies that haven't been released yet. --Dmz5 07:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Because saying "such-and-such is considering an Olympic bid" isn't really saying much at all. Events are relevant; thoughts are not. If they actually make bids, then that's relevant. Until they do, there's no real information here, even if that lack of information is well-sourced. If the world blows up tomorrow, then movies scheduled for release in December will still have been written, shot, and cut, and that is the information which goes into their articles. Until there are actual events related to future Olympics -- that is, until actual bids are made, there is no real meaningful content to these articles. - Che Nuevara 17:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per Dmz5. Somehow, someone actually managed to put some helpful encyclopedic material in these articles. Helpful being the key word. And the words "if the world explodes in 2021" don't work with crystalballing, because then WP could never write about anything past, um, December 1, 2006. I am going to include an exact copy from WP:NOT, because I think it's relevant here, and these articles clearly pass these criteria: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include 2008 U.S. presidential election, and 2012 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2032 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. A schedule of future events may also be appropriate. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 07:14, December 1, 2006 (UTC)Changed below.
So, then, you think 2022 and 2024 are more similar to the 2012 Olympics (whose location and schedule are known) than to the 2032 Olympics? Sounds to me like this sort of crystal-balling is exactly what your quote excludes. Opabinia regalis 07:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Even if the 2022 Olympics never happen, if we get close enough that actual events surface, ie, that actual bids are made, then that is relevant. Making a bid is significant, but that hasn't happened yet. But the statements as they stand in the articles now are inherently logically counterfactual. - Che Nuevara 17:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Information about future olympic events and possible host cities is known FAR in advance. --- RockMFR 07:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think many people don't quite understand how far in advance the Olympics are planned- when Cincinnati, Ohio, was considering a bid for 2012, they published plans for venue locations approximately 15 years in advance. --- RockMFR 08:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
It still contains unsourced crystal balling though, in the Greek, Australian and Kiwi bids. MER-C 07:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Then we should remove those parts, right? Or source them (it couldn't be too hard). Not delete the whole article. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 07:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete 2022 as pure speculation. Undecided on the other. Punkmorten 08:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep 2024. The article has a future year in its title, but the contents are about events already in progress that are getting verifiable secondary source attention. BCoates 09:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - the article cites no reliable sources - if some can be found then maybe keep. WilyD 14:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Changed vote to Merge due to the references (see below) - I was just reading about Crystal Balling earlier today, and this is practically the text book example given in the article (and here I thought someone was just trying to be silly!). --Willscrlt 15:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No sources, pure speculation as to where it will be. We could just as easily justify such a crystal ball article about the next 100,000 years of Olympics. Keep articles which have coverage about the competition by cities to get the event. The 2016 Summer Olympics bids, for example, are going on on the part of various cities. But not 2022, 2026, 2030, etcWinter Olympics. Wait until at least 2 (i.e. multiple) reliable and verifiable independent sources can be cited to show that cities have submitted proposals to the committee.Edison 16:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - It looks like the person who made this spent a bit of time looking for things for this, let it be kept
  • Keep the 2024 article, which adequately documents current speculation about this upcoming event. Delete 2022 article, unless someone finds more than one source to document its contents. Nick Graves 22:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is not Wikinews. Until the official decision is made as to the site and/or scheduling of the games, an article is premature. All of the contents, worthwhile reading they may be, can be included at the proper time. B.Wind 23:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep a future Olympics is definatly should be allowed on wikipedia Ppoi307 18:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete' - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. MrHarman 01:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you be more specific, MrHarman? As I said above, WP:NOT allows for source-able future events. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 01:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per crystal ball. ReverendG 03:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - When I first saw this, I was thinking delete. But then looked around for some sources and found some, so I suggest keeping this. --Aude (talk) 03:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'd normally vote delete for this as well, but both articles contain verifiable press coverage, even if we're talking 15 years or more down the line. A few of the listed possible bids, however, need better sourcing. But both have enough to justify keeping. I would, however, support a "Future Olympic Bids" article in lieu of individual games articles. 23skidoo 03:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think a "Future Olympic bids" article would solve the problem at hand- there would still be debate over which future games deserve articles. --- RockMFR 06:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --MerkurIX(이야기하세요!)(투고) 04:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge the two articles into a new "Future Olympic Bids" article per 23skidoo's suggestion. --Willscrlt 06:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There's a faint bit of speculation, but both articles include reliable sources regarding an event for which planning is well underway in many quarters. Alansohn 22:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete(ish) - serious crystal-balling, not to mention a bit of original research to boot. Not only do we not know who will host it, we don't even know who will be bidding yet. Speculating about which countries might be bidding is exactly that - speculation, which is explicitly not allowed. Chris cheese whine 03:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    • By that argument, we shouldn't have an article on the 2008 presidential elections, because we're only speculating on who might run. Barak Obama might run; Hillary Clinton and John McCain might run. But the WP:NOT section specifically says this is OK. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 03:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Bzzzt, Straw man! The 2008 US presidential elections is the next US presidential election. The 2022 Winter and 2024 Summer Olympics are not the next Olympic games. They are next-but-three Winter and next-but-four Summer games. My argument is that these events are too far in the future for us to reliably know anything about them other than the fact that they're pencilled in. In fact, if you look at WP:NOT#CBALL, it actually states that the next election and the next Olympics are appropriate topics, but that anything much further down the line than that is explicitly not appropriate. Chris cheese whine 03:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
        • OK, fair enough, but that's not what your original argument said. It said, exactly, "Speculating about which countries might be bidding is exactly that - speculation, which is explicitly not allowed." And, for your second argument, if I've read WP:NOT properly it says that future events are only not allowed because they're non-sourceable - "because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research." It says nothing about being too far in the future. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 03:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Where's your reliable source that Thessaloniki will be bidding for 2024? (See WP:V#Burden of evidence) Chris cheese whine 04:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Fixed link - 04:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
            • Granted, I have none. That specific one should be removed from the article. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 04:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
              • You want me to move on to the rest of the bids one-by-one? Auckland 2024. Philadelphia 2024. Vaduz 2022. Quebec 2022. Cape Town 2020. Minneapolis 2020. Sofia 2018. Denver 2018. The sourcing problem is not something that is solved by removing specific information here - it is endemic in all of the far-future Olympic articles. Let the IOC at least figure out next year who's getting 2014, and then maybe we can start thinking about writing about it. Chris cheese whine 04:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
                • Hmm, you may have a point. That article on Philadelphia was 100% conjecture. The only decent one appeared to be Copenhagen (one link was broken, and the other in French, which I don't know). Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 04:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, per above discussion. The provided links, except for Copenhagen, are purely conjectural. And one bid does not an article make. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 04:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


  • I'll tell y'all what, since I'm currently rampaging against futurecruft (and probably inviting charges of "rampant deletionism" by doing so), I propose instead just redirecting these articles somewhere. Note that my comment of delete remains, as I specifically oppose the merger of any of the speculation into the target pages. How's that sound to people for now? Chris cheese whine 04:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per Patstuart. JoshuaZ 05:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
AfD is not a vote. Please explain the reasons we should delete the article. --- RockMFR 14:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP. Their is sufficient verifiable source material.PalX 09:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
AfD is not a vote. Please explain the reasons we should keep the article. Chris cheese whine 09:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • strong keep. The reason is that information will increasingly become available as the place is discussed and then decided, and we will then need somewhere to put it. The discussion of where to put it is notable, for such a truly major event. We might as well have the article now. It is not futurecruft because it is not speculation that it will take place. DGG 00:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. 2024 article looks fully sourced to me. No crystal ball problem becauuse planning for these events exists now. --JJay 00:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • JJay, perhaps you'd like to read my comments above. I originally voted strong keep, but when I checked out the sources, all but one turned out to be fluff. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 03:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree. They are all mostly good. And there are a lot more available through google. Beyond that the topic is entirely valid. --JJay 04:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article is almost entirely OR speculation. A load of crystal balls, in fact. WMMartin 17:34, 6 December 2006 (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.