Wiki How:Articles for deletion/2006 Winter Olympics highlights

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, which will default to keep. Its evident from the discussion below that the article can use some work, namely with some more sources, so lets work on that. One thing is for certain though, and that is there is no consensus to delete the article. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Winter Olympics highlights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

An article for the 2006 Winter Olympics already exists. Individual pages for the different sports already exist. A highlights article is not necessary, nor is it encyclopedic. Highlighting individual elements of such a large event generates problems with NPOV. Additionally it is inconsistent with MOS and with the articles for previous Olympic games and other athletic events. Article has no references and duplicates information from previously mentioned articles. Becky Sayles (talk) 06:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2008_Summer_Olympics_highlights before editing. Becky Sayles (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. Becky Sayles (talk) 07:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you're the nominator, it's pretty obvious that you want to delete this. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 22:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Nominated purely out of spite of being taunted on the nomination of the same user's nomination of the Summer Olympics highlights. "Not encyclopedic", "possible NPOV violations" and "not consistent with MOS" are reasons to cleanup, not delete. CoolKid1993 (talk) 06:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's nominated for the same reason the 2008 highlights page is. It duplicates information in a manner that is simply not necessary. If you're identifying your contributions as taunting, then perhaps you should not participate in Afd debates.Becky Sayles (talk) 07:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The 2008 highlights were kept. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 22:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other discussion was closed as the article was then linked from the main page, not as a result of the discussion. Brilliantine (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/Merge. This article gives a more detailed overview of the events of the games than what is shown on the main article. This information should be kept, whether on this page or the other, and should be revised to the encyclopedic standards that have been set over the first few days of coverage at 2008 Summer Olympics highlights.
  • The details are already present in the articles for the individual sports. This page does not provide appropriate organization for the information.Becky Sayles (talk) 07:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is its organisation inappropriate? Sometimes we need more details than would be reasonable on the main article, yet less detail than is on the individual sports articles. This article is such a case. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 22:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful. Nominator is on an "deletion-spree". Thankyoubaby (talk) 06:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator is not on a deletion-spree. Becky Sayles (talk) 07:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personal attacks aside, (and yes referring to someone or their conduct in a disparaging manner is a personal attack) useful isn't a terribly compelling argument to keep an article. "Useful" doesn't cut it when an article is up for deletion. I might find that keep my family tree on wikipedia is "useful" for myself and my extended family but that doesn't mean it is going to stick around. If you'd like to give some policy based reason on why you feel this article doesn't violate the reason for nomination please do so.--Crossmr (talk) 09:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Who says that these were the Games' highlights? - no sources at all are provided, and as such it seems to be a form of OR. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This format is a useful way of organizing a large amount of information in a reader-friendly format. Nick, the tag you're thinking of then is {{unreferenced}}, not {{afd}}. - BanyanTree 08:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No I'm not: I'm thinking of {{originalresearch}}. The categorisation of these events as being the games' highlights needs to be strongly referenced for this article to be valid. Given that thousands of sports writers around the world produce lists of highlights at the end of each Olympics it will be impossible to develop a list of generally accepted highlights. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Since when does {{OR}} = AfD? You want to delete an article based on its title? What have we come to? Think of a better name, do not delete. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the foundation for the article is based in it. It is a fancy name for a list, and when the criteria is described in such a way that invites editors to partake in OR and NPOV considerations to cherry pick content, the list is inappropriate and should be deleted.--Crossmr (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Actually, shouldn't the fact that "thousands of sports writers around the world produce lists of highlights" make it easier to develop a list of generally accepted highlights? If there are thousands of websites covering the Olympics and they virtually all lead their daily news coverage with a few particular Olympic events and records, shouldn't it be much more acceptable of producing a similar list here? Timbouctou (talk) 08:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I don't quite see how a multitude of relevant sources will result in an inability to cite an article. And {{originalresearch}} is not {{afd}}. There has been constructive and calm discussion at Talk:2008 Summer Olympics highlights on where to draw the line for inclusion, and I imagine that there will continued discussion and pruning of content. If the fundamental objection here is that the article requires editorial judgment and is therefore "NPOV", I wish to point out that editorial judgment is valued in writing, not derided. I don't know any editor who doesn't make decisions on what is and isn't important all the time. - BanyanTree 09:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Each medal is a highlight for someone, so by being selective in listing these without a judicious amount of sourcing that influential commentators believe such and such an event is a highlight, the article fundamentally violates WP:OR. Commentators in each English-speaking nation will have its own different perspective on the highlights, and will result in overt cultural bias against non-English-speaking nations. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at 2008 Summer Olympics highlights, where consensus seems to be that broken world records and gold medals all get covered, with some disagreement over coverage of Olympic records, all of which is meticulously cited. Do you believe that such mechanistic standards for inclusion will result in cultural bias? Do you believe that 2006 Winter Olympics highlights cannot be improved to 2008 Summer Olympics highlights standards? If the answer to both of these is less than an absolute "no", then this AFD is a misguided attempt to nuke an article that needs some attention. - BanyanTree 09:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bias isn't a reason for deletion. Only if the bias is unfixable is it sufficient rationale. Consider, for example, Rwanda. This article has significant systemic bias, since very few Wikipedians are Rwandan, but it's still worthy of inclusion. Given enough work, we can fix the bias. That's not possible if the article gets deleted. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 22:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There cannot be a way of making this article unbiased without it becoming much closer to 2006 Winter Olympics medal count, which it would largely duplicate. Brilliantine (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I appreciate the "usefulness" of this article, but any list (which this is) that forms criteria that are essentially editors opinion on whether or not something is a highlight is original research. It is asking editors to put forth a theory that the tidbit they want to add is notable, or more notable than another tidbit. Wikipedia is also not a news site, which this amounts to. This type of page is much more suited to wikinews.--Crossmr (talk) 10:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As with the 2008 games discussion, I agree that the title of this article could be seen as NPOV-violating. So give it a better title (just be sure to rename related articles for consistency). As for the article itself, I find it perfectly viable as a way of condensing a major worldwide event. If any of the events listed here never happened, then remove them, of course. Otherwise I don't see the problem. 23skidoo (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its already condensed in medal listings and various records listing. I believe articles exist for both of those things.--Crossmr (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. AfD is not Wikipedia's cleanup department. Also, when the article is getting really really long, as in the case of 2006 Winter Olympics, you can create sub-articles like this one. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You see inherent policy violation as clean-up?--Crossmr (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, he sees this article as worthy for inclusion. History of Lithuania has POV issues, but isn't eligible for deletion. When an article has problems with NPOV, it should be marked for cleanup, not deleted as a knee-jerk reaction. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 22:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is because the history of lithuania isn't an inherently flawed article. If it were titled "highlights of hte history of lithuania" it would be.--Crossmr (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • But consider this (by consider I mean that you actually think about it). History of Lithuania is not an inherently flawed article. If it were titled "Highlights of the history of Lithuania"; yes, it would be flawed. But the exact same article would be inherently flawed under those conditions; that is, if I were to move History of Lithuania to Highlights of the history of Lithuania, the article would have these "inherent flaws" you mention. The exact same article. Yet the article obviously does not have those flaws in its current form. So it was the act of moving the article that created the "inherent flaws". In its current form (and in any reasonable alternate), History of Lithuania is a "highlights article". If a user wants to read about the history of Lithuania in general, they go to that article. If they want to read about a specific event in the history of Lithuania, they can either read the main article and look for a mention of it, or they can go to the specific article on the topic. By your definition of "inherently flawed", it could be argued that perhaps over half of the information on Wikipedia, even including FAs, is "inherently flawed" and must be deleted. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 22:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've considered it. This page is essentially a list, and the title sets the criteria for the list. That is what makes it inherently flawed. Now, we could simply remove highlights from the title, because that is what makes it inherently flawed, but then we already have 2006 Winter Olympics article. Picking and choosing highlights given the sheer volume of coverage is original research and neutral point of view. The page can't be written without violating those, thus it can't exist.--Crossmr (talk) 01:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • But it's absolutely ridiculous to delete something because there are too many sources. Choosing what's a highlight cannot really be considered original research. That's just categorising information. Additionally, you just admitted that the title is what makes it flawed. But is anyone really going to care what we call highlights? If we just list events with significant media mention, as well as medals and records, we can get enough coverage to reasonably term it "highlights". Anyway, if the title is the problem, why not change the title? Why are all of the deletionists here putting so much effort into trying to get this article deleted when the only problem is the title? Also, most news sources do refer to certain events as highlights. They might not publish their criteria for those, but the lists of published highlights allow us to come up with some general criteria for what's a highlight. If you have a personal vendetta against the word "highlight", why not just come up with a new name? It'd be far easier than getting this article deleted. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 01:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Aside from not being suitable for Wikinews (something 2½ years old isn't news!) and being an obviously WP:POINT nomination, this article is a useful summary and is entirely capable of being cleaned up and sourced, and "highlights" can easily be defined to restrict what's not notable. Being a summary of what's noted elsewhere isn't a problem: for example, France at the Olympics is a summary of individual "France at the [year] [season] Olympics" articles. It's basically an implementation of Wikipedia:Summary style. Nyttend (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So just because its 2.5 years old doesn't make it news? then it is old news and not entirely appropriate for wikipedia. As pointed out, WP:NOTNEWS, thank you for making the case of the nominator. As far as deciding what is notable, anything that receives coverage is arguable notable which in the case of the olympics and the thousands upon tens of thousands or more news organizations covering them could be just about everything.--Crossmr (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So we should delete an article just because it would cover a lot? Ridiculous. Also, Battle of Grunwald is 598-year-old news, by your assessment, and thus eligible for deletion. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 22:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, but you might want to see that write-up we have on purposely not getting the point.. The battle of grunwald is a far cry from the cherry picked highlights of the olympics, especially when the information is already included elsewhere.--Crossmr (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • And would you explain how exactly a user browsing Wikipedia is expected to obtain the information provided on this page by way of the existing articles? I don't know about you, but I would never in a million years look for information on the 2006 Winter Olympics by typing in "(sport) at the 2006 Winter Olympics" if there were a "highlights" article, at least not when looking for non-obscure information. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 22:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Considering some people don't want to consider it to be anything more than a medal/world record list (which is their opinion on what a highlight is and thus original research) You can start off at 2006 Winter Olympics medal table and check out the individual country pages for medal results. I might also recommend checking out Category:2006_Winter_Olympics_events as it has links to all the individual sporting pages which have medals, records, etc. Anything else?--Crossmr (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does this list have arbitrary inclusion criteria (in principle, who decides what constitutes a highlight) or does it just list every gold medalist? Punkmorten (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only way that a list of 'highlights' for an olympiad can emerge is via WP:OR, and as such is not material that is eligible for inclusion in wikipedia. Aaronw (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong speedy keep. Does the nominator have a personal vendetta against the Olympics? Being a summary of what's noted elsewhere isn't criteria for deletion. Neither is an abundance of resources. The title could be viewed as non-NPOV, but it would not really make sense an any other form I can think of. AFD is not the place to get articles cleaned up. How is a highlight original research anyway? Original research is information that isn't substantiated by reliable sources, not information that is categorised without a source. See WP:NOTOR#Compiling facts and information. This is a bad faith nomination made only to prove a point. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 00:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is what is a highlight and what isn't a highlight isn't a fact. So referencing that is fairly meaningless.Any number of news organizations may declare any piece of information a "highlight" and respective countries might consider any remotely good news about one of their athletes a "highlight" (a personal best finish, even if it isn't remotely in medal contention for example). Editors making judgment calls about what is and isn't a highlight is original research and violates NPOV. In addition to that Speedy Keep can no longer apply once editors other than the nominator have spoken for its deletion.--Crossmr (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So why not just add more highlights? If news sources in multiple countries agree that something's a highlight, there's no problem with the news sources' respective biases. Even in the United States, where nobody cares about anything other than Team USA, the news mentions highlights not involving the United States. Collecting related information is not OR. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 22:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because the page would explode to possibly thousands of items or more. The criteria because some vague it becomes an inappropriate list per WP:LIST. --Crossmr (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • What part of WP:LIST says that long lists aren't acceptable? Thousands of items would be a bit much, but I see no inherent problems associated with lengthening the list. If we include medals, world and Olympic records, and citable non-competition events (such as the Opening and Closing ceremonies) the list is shorter than many others and very possible to cite. We could even add more without damaging it. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 22:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well there is a manual of style on long articles which also covers lists, but you've just proven my point. Lists states NPOV must be adhered to, and you can't adhere to that if you're cherry picking results. The page is either thousands of entries long or it can't exist without violating policy. But that still doesn't give it a pass on WP:NOTNEWS--Crossmr (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Over 9000 Keep, but I would be remiss in not pointing out the fine arguments in the 2008 highlights discussion. This is more than acceptable and a good, sourced resource. A rename might not hurt; but I'm not sure it's necessary.Ravenmasterq (talk) 04:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we looking at the same article? I don't see any sources, care to revise your statement?--Crossmr (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources are available on the other pages you mention in every other sentence. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 22:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I failed to see any 'fine arguments' at all in the other discussion. They mainly seemed to be votes without comment or WP:ILIKEIT. Brilliantine (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion votes were overwhelmingly WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:VAGUEWAVE and WP:UNENCYC. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 22:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is patently untrue. Brilliantine (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because they're more than two words doesn't mean they aren't bad arguments. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 22:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it is an arbitrary list which does not define what a highlight is, plus although everything is wikilinked there are no external sources. It is simply all OR and POV, I suspect the results are covered elsewhere so making this redundant. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is WP:OR by its very nature. If there is any useful and NPOV content, this should be introduced to the main article. Brilliantine (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - its basically a list of medal winners w/ a brief bit of context which by default is notable and cited and provides an easy to read less information overload view of the event. -- Tawker (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Yawn -- Highly useful article. I'd like to see it deleted. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that sarcasm, or are you voting for this article to be deleted? Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 22:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If people actually want this deleted, why hasn't anyone made any reference to why. The nomination is just WP:POINT, the initial rationale was refused in the previous discussion, and no new rationale has been presented. The arguments for deletion are simply attempts to refute the arguments for keeping, and AfD defaults to keep. So, anyone want to make a list of reasons for deletion? Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 22:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The initial rationale was not refused in the previous discussion. There was a roughly 50/50 split in the debate, and few arguments on the keep side were any more than WP:ILIKEIT. The previous discussion was closed for procedural reasons - i.e. to avoid an AFD on an article that is linked from the main page. Since the other article is no longer linked from the main page, the other discussion will be re-opened. It is more disruptive to try and stifle debate like this than to nominate an article for deletion. The rationale presented is that the article cannot possibly exist without violating WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Moreover, the nature of the article is unencyclopedic, is contrary to the manual of style - and last but not least, duplicates existing content. These are sound arguments based on policy. Brilliantine (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I'm encouraging any closing admin to read the arguments carefully and remember consensus isn't a vote and there is a larger consensus formed in the policies being referenced.--Crossmr (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Brilliantine Deletion is less disruptive than keeping the article, eh? What's your definition of "disruptive"? Wikipedia-affiliated Wiktionary gives "to throw into confusion or disorder" and "to interrupt or impede something". Now, explain how not deleting an article is disruptive. Retaining the status quo is by definition less disruptive than deleting a perfectly good article. Also, the nomination was disruptive. Nominating this article because another failed is very WP:POINTy. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 02:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment See User talk:Becky Sayles. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 02:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Frankly, It doesn't matter to me what the nominator's intentions are (I shall assume WP:AGF) - it matters to me that there is a problem article here. In relation to your first point, if nothing that was disruptive or anyone disagreed with ever got done, wikipedia would be a laughing stock: nothing would ever get deleted. The whole point of a deletion discussion is to have - surprise surprise - a discussion about whether something should be deleted (which is what we are having now). I have outlined several reasons why the article is not 'perfectly good' as you claim. Some of these are problems with the very nature of the article and hence are good reasons for deletion. I have yet to see any arguments for keeping other than WP:ILIKEIT, WP:USEFUL and your frankly bizarre mention of 'disruption' above. Brilliantine (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before disparaging an opinion because it used WP:USEFUL as a rationale, I think it would do some editors well to review that guideline. Something that is useful to a very large number of people (ie. olympics coverage), as opposed to a segment of the population (ie. the new york phonebook or crossmr's family tree) can be excluded from the application of USEFUL. Random89 22:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ALSO: I quote this from the guideline: "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject." is a valid rationale for keeping. I belive that applies here. Random89 22:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:USEFUL: "Remember, you need to tell us why the article is useful or useless, and whether it meets Wikipedia's policies". I'm afraid I strongly believe that it does not meet Wikipedia's policies, and also duplicates far too much content - look at the main article for the games, the large number of articles to do with individual sports at those games, and the medal table article. Brilliantine (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we say WP:IDONTLIKEIT, anyone? Belief is not a reason to delete. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 22:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec with Random89 and Brilliantine) Wikipedia would be a laughingstock if nothing got deleted? Wikipedia would be a laughing stock if we followed your ridiculous arguments for deletion on every page. If I counted correctly, we would have slightly under four articles. The problems with the "very nature of the article" are problems you have with its title. You point at WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL in every statement you make, but what about WP:PROBLEM? Name one reason why the problems are unfixable. Not just "There are reasons", but actual reasons supported by actual policy. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 22:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Look above. It inherently violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV. This is what I have been saying the whole time, and you are consistently misrepresenting my argument. To compare (as you have done) against something like History of Lithuania is a false analogy, as what is in the article is determined by what is in the sources, and the criteria for inclusion is what is in the sources, using WP:UNDUE to determine how much of each event/viewpoint is included. This article is completely unsourced and the decision as to what to include in it can only be WP:OR by definition. The same information can be gained by going to the 2006 Winter Olympics article and following the links to coverage of the individual events from there, not difficult (and the individual event articles are even sourced!). I will not comment any more on this AFD, as it is growing tiresome to repeat the same policy-supported points over and over again. Brilliantine (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why can't the source links be copied to the highlights article? Point to the policy forbidding that. Repeating the same policy-unsupported points over and over again doesn't really strengthen your argument. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 22:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In part because of the 2008 AFD Gary King (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "The other discussion was closed as the article was then linked from the main page, not as a result of the discussion." - Brilliantine Becky Sayles (talk) 06:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would the other part be? The 2008 discussion was closed on procedure and consisted of little more than WP:ILIKEIT reasons for keeping the article...--Crossmr (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he was thinking of every one of the keep votes above and below? You might want to read them some day. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 22:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is the wrong place to address concerns such as NPOV and UNDUE, the article could be edited to be neutral and balanced. While the article is not in great shape, in theory it is a perfectly viable topic for an article. Also, I am coming close to considering a bad faith nom, because it was essentially dragged to AfD after an editor cited it as a precedent for the format of the 2008 Olympics AfD as part of a keep vote. Random89 08:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't a perfectly viable topic, that is the problem. The topic suffers from the fact that it is a "news" topic, and the nature of the topic invites OR and NPOV issues which is why it is here. Another editor made a pointless argument at the 2008 deletion discussion and this was nominated as a result and may have been otherwise nominated as the submitter of the 2008 may not have been aware of the 2006 at the time. I recommend WP:AGF for further reading.--Crossmr (talk) 09:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So anything that is a "news" topic invites NPOV and OR concerns? And anything that has NPOV and OR concerns should be dragged through AfD? I find the topic viable because it is verifiable, per WP:V and WP:RS, could be written from a NPOV, and can be cited to remove OR. I am assuming good faith, as I do believe that the nominator was trying to better the porject (in her view) when she started olympics noms, but nominating this while the other discussion was still ongoing, and continuing the process after the other AfD was essentially closed until at least after the olympics, has the semblance of POINT. Random89 21:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the point Crossmr is trying to make is that, given the title and scope of the article, it isn't possible for it to be anything other than OR. Brilliantine (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec) All news has problems with NPOV and OR? The AfD criteria aren't NPOV and OR, anyway, they're WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:N. The topic is verifiable, can be NPOV, and citations exist. The nomination wasn't really clean either. WP:POINT could have been written about it. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 22:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, this news topic has a problem with NPOV and OR because of the specific title given to it. As I've pointed out numerous times a highlight could be considered any fact about the olympics that ANY reliable source deemed worthy of giving coverage on a particular day. Any other interpretation of "highlight" could be considered original research and violate neutral point of view by giving undue weight to some editors opinion about what constitutes a highlight. With that in mind and understanding how many news organizations cover the olympics and what they might all right, this becomes a list of unmanageable scope which doesn't belong here.--Crossmr (talk) 01:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • So change the title, then. WP:SOFIXIT should be read by everyone who votes to delete this. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 01:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I pointed out above where all this information is already contained in just 2 places already. There is no reason to condense just 2 pages in to 1 page. The fix, is to delete it because its unnecessary.--Crossmr (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • See WP:NOHARM and WP:WEDONTNEEDIT. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 21:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Which don't apply since the page inherently violates policy as it is. I pointed out that it violated several policies simply by its nature. So you claimed it should be fixed. I then pointed out that fixing it was unnecessary because the information is already contained in just 2 locations. It is duplicating information elsewhere which is also against policy. You haven't given any compelling reason to keep this article.--Crossmr (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Point to the policy which states that duplicating information elsewhere is bad. Not an essay, but a policy. Essays aren't reasons to delete. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 02:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to say that this is the reason why I left Wikipedia a couple of years ago, after 3 years of editing. You must be a very sad person Becky Sayles, try getting a life. Cheers to those who keep the spirit. Continue your good work! 85.243.52.14 (talk) 11:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Yaaaaaawn and remove rollback right Even if this was a OR, then you should work on improving it and adding refs. A better reason to keep the article is to go and check the traffic of the article. I bet this article recieved more traffic than 1,000,000 other articles on English wikipedia. Also, I don't understand how a user with such blatant activities against contribuiting received a rollback right.... Nergaal (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're discussing this article, not a users rollback rights. If you want to discuss that you might want to find the appropriate forum to do so. I don't see in any of the cited polices a line which states "If this article gets a lot of traffic, this policy does not apply to it". Per WP:LIST refs can't help it. See the part about defining criteria. The criteria is so ill defined by the very title it would balloon to unmanageable size. Refs or otherwise.--Crossmr (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So why not define some criteria? Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 22:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - A better example of a very useful and well organized list I cannot imagine. This one gets a Gold Medal from my POV.--Mike Cline (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Useful and well organized? Sorry, could you point to the part of WP:OR, WP:NOT or WP:NPOV that gives exemptions if a page meets those stringent criteria?--Crossmr (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Move and turn this into a sub-page of 2006 in sports to transclude to show at 2006 in sports#Olympics. This is not an encyclopedia article and should not be in article space, but contains enough useful info to keep around. I don't suggest merging -- can't categorise with "2006 Winter Olympics" after merge. --PFHLai (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If the article remains essentially the same, simply as a subpage, I would agree with such an outcome. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 22:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This page has a searchable database of all Olympic medal winners since 1896. If someone figured out how to cite it in the article, it'd be enough to source at least half of the highlights. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 23:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - If this is deleted, then I shall renominate the equivalent page for the Beijing Olympics for deletion. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please focus on this article/nomination. Aaronw (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Every night the while the Olympics happen the news coverage is exactly this kind of a highlights coverage only we have links to the articles on the athletes and sports, etc. Quite useful and an excellent use of wikipedia. Presenting a summary of dozens of other articles into a useful format seems quite helpful as well. If there is an Olympics project they should consider building similar articles for each event if the main articles are already too large. Banjeboi 10:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if renamed. I was going to agree with the deletion nomination based on the name alone, then I actually looked at the article and realised it's basically acceptable - it provides a cut-down list of the major events and records from the 2006 Olympics. While all the information here is available elsewhere, this seems like a useful way of presenting it. I would urge a rename, though; as argued above, 'highlights' has implications of original research. I would support the title suggested on the talk page: 'Chronological summary of the 2006 Winter Olympics'. Terraxos (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Summer Olympics highlights, needs a major clean up however. — Realist² 16:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That article was only kept because it was linked from the main page at the time, *NOT* due its own merits. Aaronw (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have proposed on the talk page that this article be renamed Chronological summary of the 2006 Winter Olympics. This is an accurate reflection of the content of the article, and negates some of the concerns over OR and NPOV. Because of this AfD, I would like larger input before carrying out such a move. Random89 19:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest a modification to 2006 Winter Olympics summary of notable events to more clearly indicate what's in the article instead of just chronological. Banjeboi 20:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about just Summary of the 2006 Winter Olympics? Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 21:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that would be fine as long as the lede continues to spell out that the article is of notable events. Banjeboi 00:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per comments made on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics. I have been working on Olympics articles since day one of becoming a user, and have written thousands of them. I have yet to see any compelling reason for presenting Olympic results on a per-day basis. We already have a main article for each Games (2006 Winter Olympics, and in good summary style, we have per-sport articles (e.g. Alpine skiing at the 2006 Winter Olympics) and per-nation articles (e.g. Norway at the 2006 Winter Olympics), and even per-event articles when the per-sport articles would be too big (e.g. Alpine skiing at the 2006 Winter Olympics - Men's downhill). Do we really need yet another, redundant, way of browsing this content? This article was originally created around the time of those Games, so I would say it is a case of WP:Recentism. As a long time and prolific editor for the Olympics WikiProject, I can say that every 2 or 4 years we get a huge boatload of new editors coming along to work on Olympic articles, with lots of good-faith ideas of what more they can add, but then they move on to the next flavor of the month after the Games conclude. This article is a great example of that. Is there really any long-term historical perspective to be gained from a per-day organization of material that is already present on the per-sport and/or per-nation articles, or on the main article itself? I don't think so. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, deciding what is and is not a highlight inherently violates WP:NPOV. Stifle (talk) 13:40, 15 August 2008 (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.