Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London 2012 Olympic Legacy


 * 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   keep.  MBisanz  talk 03:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

London 2012 Olympic Legacy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Neologism, POV, original research, orphan. Journalistic essay discussing gov't expenditure on the Olympics. Worthwhile topic for a news site but inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. OttoTheFish (talk) 06:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Until the time comes merge to 2012 Summer Olympics. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just Delete It's just a placeholder for an editorial, and after 2012 it will still be the placeholder for an editorial. Mangoe (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's supposed to be a summary of discussion and announcements related to the Olympic legacy, and it already cites reliable sources. Is there a reason you would not have an article on this topic, except being in the future? Juzhong (talk) 11:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and revise to excise POV elements. The title is a widely used term in government and the media, and the topic is a significant aspect of the development of the Olympic site, one of the largest public works projects in Europe. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - notability established the usual way. Not so compelling a subject that the usual standards should be abandoned. Wily D  15:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge Seems pretty useless on it's own. YOWUZA  Talk 2 me! 17:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems more like an editorial from a newspaper or blog than an encyclopedia topic. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep -- not WP:NEO. This is an important subject, but the present article may have POV issues, which need to be dealt with.  It could be merged to a 2012 OLympic article, but that will no doubt become far too big, so that this would need to be forked out of it again in due course.  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - As a Londoner, I can confirm that this is a topic that is very much deserving of a page on Wikipedia. However, the article does need some rewriting and expansion. Tris2000 (talk) 12:15, 13 November 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.