Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2032 Summer Olympics (4th nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2017 June 13.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. postdlf (talk) 01:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2032 Summer Olympics[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 03:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per WP:TOOSOON. 2028 Summer Olympics hasn't been given a host city yet, let alone nominations for the 2032 games. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT per Lugnuts....William 12:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Salt per Lugnuts, Obviously way too soon. –Davey2010^Talk 18:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with salt for added flavor per nom. --189.106.231.36 (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)— 189.106.231.36 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. I have substantially expanded this article, adding sources for potential bids from various cities. It's been nine years since this article was first deleted, and we are now close enough to the 2032 Olympics that cities have begun to express interest in bidding; thus I believe now is a good time to keep the article: it's not really "too soon" any more. Three cities on separate continents have expressed an interest in bidding. \\ Note: the previous "Delete" votes were made when the article was just a few lines with no references, and should probably be reconsidered now the scope of the article has substantially changed. \\ Note 2: if this article does indeed get deleted, the version I made may be viewed in my sandbox (permanent link). Future editors may find this handy. Chessrat ^{(talk,contributions)} 15:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Even in its expanded form it really is too soon for this article. By common practice we have only kept articles on future, un-awarded games, to one cycle for winter and two cycles (which may even be excessive) for the summer. This is three cycles in the future. Any of these cities are already listed as exploring (or potentially exploring) bids for 2028 and could, in theory, still apply for either 2024 or 2028. In addition, every reference is of the type "potentially interested," "considering exploring," "considering a bid in the future," etc. None of these are even near concrete intentions or even concrete intentions to explore a bid. We don't even know, or have an indication of, if the election system used will be the same. Ravendrop 17:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your statement that "By common practice we have only kept articles on future, un-awarded games, to one cycle for winter and two cycles (which may even be excessive) for the summer" seems to be patently wrong. The article for the 2028 Summer Olympics has existed since 2006, and has not received any AfD nominations since shortly after then: thus for a long time the 2028 article was *four* cycles into the future without its existence being challenged. If we were to go by precedent, not only should the 2032 article exist, but there should also be an article for the 2036 Summer Olympics (!) Thus, it seems the "common practice" does not support deletion of this article. This isn't to say that your points aren't valid, but it's definitely not common practice to delete a Summer Olympics article only 17 years before the event is due to take place. \\ To reply to your other arguments: It's true that the procedure may change by 2032, but present sources say that the procedure is planned to continue in its current format. Reliable sources linked in the article imply that a Summer Olympics will take place in 2032. And while the intentions aren't concrete, they're still relevant to the article. You say that the 2032 potential applicant cities could still apply for 2024 or 2028, but they don't intend to: it's clear that some cities have been specifically targeting 2032. I see no Wikipedia policies that the 2032 article is violating, given the multiple reliable sources. Chessrat ^{(talk,contributions)} 21:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT per the above. The fact that something somewhere has been written about the tentative future of this potential event doesn't magically make it encyclopedic. WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 05:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per nominator's rationale. It is ridiculous that an encyclopedia has a stand-alone article for an event that is not scheduled to take place for 17 years, for which the location and exact dates cannot be determined (the location will not be determined for another 10 years), and for which there is no certainty that it will even occur (the 1916, 1940 and 1944 Olympics were canceled because of war). Notwithstanding the reliable sources included, this article is an exercise in speculation. Please note what the general notability guidelines state: "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article[.]" To the extent we should have coverage of the 2024, 2028, 2032 and subsequent Olympics, the pertinent content could be distilled and combined into a single article titled "Future Summer Olympics," or a "Future Olympics" table within the parent Summer Olympics article. The creation of this article is a violation of the spirit, if not the letter of WP:CRYSTAL, and a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.