Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cities that failed in their bids to host the Olympics


 * 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 TO DELETE. Herostratus 00:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

List of cities that failed in their bids to host the Olympics

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete as redundant to Bids for Olympic Games and Bids for Olympic Games (ballots). Otto4711 21:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree it's redundant to the previous articles. A case could be made for creating a category, however. 23skidoo 21:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - They're definitely redundant; not sure I particularly like the naming on either. Probably would have gone with a redirect to the latter of the two, but now that we're here, I figure we might as well get rid of the redirect as it isn't a likely search term. -- Jonel | Speak 21:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note:I dropped a mention of this nomination at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics. -- Jonel | Speak 21:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm not a fan of lists, but this list contains encyclopedic information that isn't easily or quickly derivable from the Bids for Olympic Games article. Moreover, a category would only serve to note that the city had failed at least once for a bid; it wouldn't show how many times they had failed and in which years. -- Charlene 21:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I disagree that this is redundant because it organizes the information in a different way.  These lists are complementary.  I suppose, however, that you could merge the two lists -- basically making this a second section on Bids for Olympic Games.  Either way, not a discussion for AfD. --JayHenry 02:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This can perfectly be put as a section or table in Bids for Olympic Games.  Parutakupiu  talk 04:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep a handy list Lugnuts 19:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Handy? For senior officials of the most important cities in the world, for the rest of us, I doubt it. So... Delete per Parutakupiu. --FateClub 02:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect if redundant, as should be done for anything redundant. It is important to keep histories and discussions.  SmokeyJoe 09:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep this list on second thought is comprehensive and may qualify for WP:FL. the title should be reworded though. --RebSkii 18:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to a new section in Bids for Olympic Games. I agree with Charlene that a category wouldn't work.  Mike Christie (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The list contains information not found in the two cited articles (for older years) and also presents the information in an alternate format.  I will try for a cleanup of the list's appearance.  -- Black Falcon 22:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have converted part of the list into table format that lists entries by: Country, City, Failed Bids. I would appreciate any comments (either here, the article's talk page, or my talk page) as to whether I should proceed with this format or suggestions for an alternate format.  Thanks, Black Falcon 22:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the format, but more than ever this now appears suitable as a section in Bids for Olympic Games. Is there some reason not to put it there?  Mike Christie (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, two reasons. Firstly, I generally prefer merges to be conducted outside of AFD.  I know this is just a personal preference, but I think it allows for a merge to be performed with more deliberation and more participation from other editors.  Secondly, Bids for Olympic Games sorts by year, whereas this article (which really needs to be renamed) sorts by country and city (formerly just city).  The two are currently not redundant, as Bids for Olympic Games does not include information on failed bids prior to the 2000s.  Ideally, all of this information should be in one article, but the problem as I see it is this: how can we merge all of the information into one place without reducing readability and usability?  All of the information in this article can be merged into Bids for Olympic Games, but I don't see how the alternate presentation format can be preserved (simply converting to a sortable table won't suffice).  Perhaps you can offer suggestions? -- Black Falcon 00:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I see your points. How about adding another column for successful bids, and then simply adding the resulting table as a section in the Bids article?  And regardless, as you say, this discussion doesn't really belong here.  Shall we move it to the talk page of the article?  Mike Christie (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as Olympic bids are major city events it is notable to list how many times each has failed. Merge is unnecessary and would complicate the other list(s). –Pomte 09:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge as per Mike Christie. -- Palffy 14:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect into Bids for Olympic Games or into Bids for Olympic Games (ballots). 38.100.34.2 22:08, 27 March 2007 (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.