Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concerns, controversies and opposition


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Concerns, controversies and opposition

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested prod. Indiscriminate collection of snippets about current affairs related to the Vancouver Olympics. Delete.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 06:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - Completely indiscreminiate collection of information. Not encyclopedic in the slightest. Shadowjams (talk) 08:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I've renamed this article to Concerns, controversies and opposition at the 2010 Winter Olympics, despite my own reservations on the use of "at" as a preposition ("of" is inadequate, and "concerning the..." seems too wordy). I'm reserving judgement on its deletion for now, though I do believe this to be a POV fork created by someone who wants to purge the 2010 article of information critical of the Games and its organization, with the rationale "there's only 45 days left" (i.e. "to put on a good face).  There are space reasons to split off various chunks of the main 2010 article, but this material was singled out as being unsavoury to those who aren't "naive" and aren't pro-Olympics enough; it's important material, not "indiscriminate" but certainly with the original title, and without a lede, it may seem so.  The creator didn't actually delete or even condense the original material on 2010 Winter Olympics.  Unless measures are taken to treat other sections of the 2010 article the same way, this is expressly a POV fork and I support its deletion.  But if other split-off articles are created, "without prejudice", it has grounds to exist in the same way the subarticles on venues etc are....Skookum1 (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete POV fork, and a duplicate of content already in 2010 Winter Olympics. Resolute 15:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The same content exists at 2010 Winter Olympics, specifically this section. There's no reason to repeat it in another article like this.  PK  T (alk)  15:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The creator's intent seems to have been to remove this material from the main article, though he didn't actually do that; there are grounds to consider a short summary on the main page, with this as a subarticle; but as noted if that's the case then preparations & development, construction, and other sections could/should be treated similarly. See the current last section on Talk:2010 Winter Olympics.Skookum1 (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - it is a POVFORK. If it is determined that it should be kept, a more NPOV title should be chosen, such as Reception of the 2010 Olympics DigitalC (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is this a delition proposal for Concerns, controversies and opposition or Concerns, controversies and opposition at the 2010 Winter Olympics or both? Also, what is the standard procedure for handling articles renamed during an active deletion proposal? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My bad - I made that change soon after the article's creation, when there was only a prod template, not an AFD, but I hadn't considered the name-change-during-deletion-debate issue; I waqs simply trying to clarify what the article was about. Agreed maybe a more NPOV title could be used, but "reception of" doesn't fit (and would include way more in hte way of subject matter).Skookum1 (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see the inclusion of more material to be a bad thing. However, "Reception of..." was simply a suggestion, and another NPOV name could work. The current name however only allows inclusion of negative views. DigitalC (talk) 02:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's either disingenuous or jejune, Digital C. "Controversies" is not a POV word; what you're suggesting is that criticisms of the Olympics be washed under "positive views", but the whole point of this article's creation was to get rid of the "negative" material from the main 2010 Olympics article.  This is not the place for this discussion, but your proposal is naive.  Negative views do exist; if someone else wanted to partition them off as a separate article because they didn't want to see them in the main article, suggesting that they not only be sequestered away from view but also "balanced" with positive p.r. is just "not on".Skookum1 (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:POVFORK. DigitalC (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I know bloody well what a POVFORK is, thank you very much. What you're suggesting is equivalent to saying that Venues of of the 2010 Winter Olympics is a POV fork.  What this article was created for (not by me) was a place to put the lengthy materials concerning same on the main page into a separate article; the creator didn't make a summary of its contents and place a main link appropriately, but it's effectively only a split-off of existing content which should have been condensed on the main page, but wasn't.  In your logic making similar splitoffs of the construction and bid sections would be POV forks; and the main difference here was that the creator was wanting to remove so-called "negative" content from the main article to make it more Olympics-promotional friendly; he'd just wanted the stuff deleted or downplayed outright, the idea of a split-off article was suggested by me; he just didn't create or title it properly.  Your idea of an article which would have "balance" and not just "negative views" is in itself POV; trying to call the truth something other than waht it is, and paper it over with denials and p.r. campaigns.  This is only a POVFork by mistake, not intent; but what you want to do, it seems, is turn it into something else; the material is already NPOV; complaining that it's not because it covers all the negative aspect of the organization and financing and violations of human rights asssociated with the games is akin to "publishing false history", giving untruth an equal footing with truth.....what I'm hearing from you is thet idea that this should bve retitled so that happy-traveller accounts of the Games and hype as presented by hte foreign media "reception" is somehow related to Harriet Nahanee's death and the funding scam perpetrated by Fortress/Millennium ree the Athletes' Village.  Give your head a shake and smarten up.  Such material wouldn't have been in the original section, the "ahppy travellers" and "gee-aren't-the-Games-Great stuff can have their own section/article...Skookum1 (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless there's a standard procedure, I think the best option would be to start over with a new deletion proposal for Concerns, controversies and opposition at the 2010 Winter Olympics. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete the redirect located at concerns, controversies and opposition, handle concerns, controversies and opposition at the 2010 Winter Olympics separately. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Following Gordon Ecker's lead, delete the redirect, start a new AFD for the retitled version. I've also reconsidered by comments about it not being a POV fork by intent; the creator clearly wants to sanitize the 2010 article by getting rid of all this stuff "so the page is ready for the Games", and claims second-language English as a reason not to do it himself; see this discussion and the second-previous section to it.Skookum1 (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

--Rundleds (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * AS the creator of this page I will clarify a few points I wanted to treat the content of this page the same way venues, the torch relay are treated. With an introduction and a link for further information. The point wasnt too hide all bad informations from the games just to follow the same  templeate  use  ON THIS PAGE with other content. The main page of Vancouver 2010 propose many pages to completed the information about the games and I wanted to do the same way about opposition/controversies. Why isnt the case anyway? I try to do something and I failed doing it... I taught it was an easy task to do... and I soon realized I dont have the background on wikipedia, and my English isnt strong enough to be involve on big project like that here.  I only try to make Vancouver 2010 better (and when I say better I'm not saying better content) just better in quality. So I wont apolozise I try unsuccesfully to built this page the proper way, I'm new here.  But, instead having a debate about this page (this page should be removed, I agree), why not having a debate about my proposition to built a separated page with the full information and on the main page having an introduction with a link for further information. One last time, I dont want to remove information negative about the games... wikipedia is an encyclopedia and this kind of information should not be deleted, they are fact, and proven,  just want them to be  better organized. But I wont do the change myself 1)because i dont have the necessary support 2)because wikipedia is too complicated and I'm not able to do it anyway. So dont be worry I wont rebuilt this page or try to do something similar. Just hope somebody will understand my point of view.
 * 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.