Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Winter Olympics highlights (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 15:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

2006 Winter Olympics highlights
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

After the 1st nomination finished, there was no consensus. There have also been 0 edits since that first nomination was concluded. The page consists *entirely* of WP:OR as to what or what not is a highlight. In short, this article is simply not encyclopedic, and there is no chance of it ever becoming one. Aaronw (talk) 01:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I would urge the closer to examine the arguments for Keep closely and ensure that they are not along the lines of "But it's a useful article" - WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a collection of useful articles/information. They do coincide at times, but an article like this is simply untenable, and lists of medal counts and other such activities already exist in a non-OR form, like 2006 Winter Olympics medal table  Aaronw (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Inclusion in this article is entirely subjective, making it WP:OR. The sources may be enough to verify that these events actually happened but not that they were the "highlights". Beeblebrox (talk) 01:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.   -- &mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 01:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep a linear timeline of events is useful. We do have date articles (years, year+month, etc) And we have a 2008 Summer Olympics highlights article as well. I think that all "long" events should have timelines. A linear timeline is illustrative of how events unfolded, and thus, should be encyclopedic. 70.51.10.188 (talk) 04:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, see 2008 Summer Olympics highlights for an example of how it can be approved. --Reinoutr (talk) 06:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete "Highlights" is POV, and therefore the article fails WP:OR.  Lugnuts  (talk) 06:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete with the same reasoning as Lugnuts . Punkmorten (talk) 08:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, inherently POV, also fails WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Stifle. The concept of the article is inherently POV and WP:OR. Nsk92 (talk) 11:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As I argued in the last AfD, the only major POV part of the article is the title. As with the 2008 one, its title can be changed and content sourced. We do not delete articles because they need clean-up, as long as they have the potential to become quality articles. If done right, this could reach the level of a featured list. Claiming we do not keep based solely on utility is a straw-man argument, as there are plenty of policy-based reasons to keep this page. Random  89  17:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, move to Chronological summary of the 2006 Winter Olympics per the 2008 precedent, and clean up per Random89. -- Jao (talk) 13:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The 2008 list states that they are "major events". Who makes the decission on what is a major event or not?  How does "major event" differ from "highlights"?  Lugnuts  (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see why any of the articles has to mention "major events". However, I do agree that inclusion criteria can be a little problematic, but certainly not more so than in your average year article? What "events" are worthy of inclusion in 1967, for instance? (I know this argument is a little WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTSy, but still, I've never heard this arbitrariness in the year articles being criticized. For days of the year, there was a proposal for criteria at Days of the year.) -- Jao (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Jao. Prince of Canadat 13:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I support move and restructuring as Jao proposed. --Tone 15:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, the name change is a good idea as it currently suggests OR and it needs some work on sourcing but that isn't reason to delete. The 2008 equivalent is a perfectly good article. Basement12 (T.C) 15:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I believe this article serves a useful purpose, filling the gap between the main Olympic page, which has little coverage of sporting events and the individual event pages, which documents the competitions in minute detail.  -- Tcncv (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. No issues with a name change. Nirvana888 (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename as proposed by Jao.Coastalsteve984 (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, move to Chronological summary of the 2006 Winter Olympics and clean up, per many people above. It looks like a good timeline. If a page has a poor title, a better title is preferable to deletion. --Pixelface (talk) 08:37, 14 October 2008 (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.