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. Tone 20:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2032 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

So Text Book WP:Crystal its an example at WP:crystal...... The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep There are references available for at least two of the bids. The Ghana bid in particular seems to garner repeated mention in the Ghanian media. However, the sourcing is not particularly strong. Passes WP:GNG and WP:V but I don't know how much preference is given to those over WP:CRYSTAL. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside, 2036 Summer Olympics is the textbook case for WP:CRYSTAL. 2028 Summer Olympicsseems fairly well sourced. Thus, I think this intermediate case is somewhat arguable.Sailsbystars (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]
    • Oops, I misread it >_< The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest Possible Delete Ever This has been deleted twice already, this is over 20 years in the future. Delete!!! Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 16:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is a category for "Scheduled sporting events." There are also two bits of sourced information in the article already. People might be interested in knowing what cities have expressed interest in hosting the games. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I nominated this for deletion earlier today but SarekOfVulcan deleted my comment from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2032 Summer Olympics. Since then 2 citations have been added so article may be of use. Zarcadia (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Ghana source is possibly viable but the second for LA is possible motion by the city council to request the "Southern California Olympics Organizing Committee to investigate the possibility of Los Angeles hosting in 2032." Emphasis mine The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL also "expressed interest in" is not the same as making an actual bid and so there will be all manner of speculation until then. All manner of things may intervene between now and then - for example there were Olympics scheduled for 1940 and 44 that did not occur. This articles time will come in a decade or so it can be resurrected then. MarnetteD | Talk 17:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • By your rationale, should we also delete 2028 Summer Olympics for which the actual bidding is still a decade away but there are 14 sources? If there were no sources available, I would agree with a delete, but given that such sources do exist, how do we determine what is too far in the future? Sailsbystars (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every Article at AFD should be based on its own merits. I was unaware it existed and it might merit deletion as well but I have not looked at it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete it's almost the definition of WP:CRYSTAL... :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 17:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and it looks like it has some copyvios in there also. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 17:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I think I've remedied the copyvios. Argh! not a good start to the article for sure.... Sailsbystars (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete It's actually quite simple to me:
  • In 20 years, Wikipedia may not even be around anymore. Or the Olympics may be ended before 2032. It's simply too far in the future to be an almost-certainly-going-to-happen event.
  • There is not significant coverage about the 2032 Olympics in general. Now, if this were in the year 3000, but there was plenty of media coverage that's more than just routine news mentions, that would be fine, regardless of the CRYSTALness.
  • They haven't even finished the process of choosing the cities or making arrangements in those cities.
  • The only thing currently is rumors about the cities placing bids. A few sources, yes, but nothing is confirmed and will not be confirmed until the bidding process officially begins.
• Perhaps what is needed is an amendment to WP:CRYSTAL saying how far in the future is too far. That's for another discussion, though, but if this article is kept, I think that someone will create articles on all the "expected" Olympics for the next, oh, 2000 years. <Waits for 3000 Summer Olympics to be created>. It makes sense, to me at least, to only create articles for the next, oh, two or three? Olympics, which is the situation currently with the Winter Olympics articles, unless ample coverage exists. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Building on Fetchomms' comment, perhaps we should we state that the only future events allowed would be those for which either a venue has been selected & preparation is underway, or for those currently accepting bids from prospective cities or other relevant organizations. For those events which fall beyond this limit, material must be added to the related article; a new article should not be created. -- llywrch (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sounds like a reasonable criterion. Just because ostensibly reliable sources speculate on a subject doesn't mean that we have to. With the Olympics, the bidding process is certainly notable, so maybe something like 1-2 years before the the bids are selected is when we can have an article? (which would mean that articles on olympics after 2020 or so would be subject to deletion as of this date) Sailsbystars (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. I don't think it's excessively CRYSTAL to say that the 2032 Olympics will happen, especially considering how far in advance the IOC assigns host cities, but having just embarked on a sourcing hunt, I find that there's just not really anything out there to construct an article on this around. Most of the contents of the page as of a few minutes ago were copyvios; those have now been cleaned out but what remains is a set of extremely minor mentions of potential host cities, none of which show any certainly that bids would even be offered. If more substantial information were available in reliable sources (and maybe it is and I just suck at finding it), I would be weakly ok with the article hanging around. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - agree with comments that once bids are actually being accepted by the IOC, then it avoids any WP:CRYSTAL concerns, because at the point the IOC has decided that the games for that year will indeed be held. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 18:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Either, to a single article dealing with sourced information about future Olympic Games for which bids are being accepted; and/or to articles about the individual nations at the Olympics (e.g. Ghana at the Olympics) where there is reliable sourced information. Thryduulf (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not anywhere near enough reliable sourcing to support an article like this yet. Besides, what if they change the schedule again like they did for the Winter Games?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Harmless. 21 years in the future, who knows where anything will be, including wikipedia. I'm already working on an article about the 3001 Academy Awards. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• For those who didn't see this the last time that it came up, I've restored the edit history that was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TBD 2032. (Don't ask me why Ron Ritzman renamed it back before deleting it. It seemed sensible for the deleted edits to be here, so that people could see the past edits the next time that the subject came up, which is, ironically, now.) The difference between the 4-source article for which consensus was adjudged to be delete only three months ago, and the 4-source article under discussion now, is this. As you can see, it's not a lot.

  Moreover: The difference between the re-creation that SarekOfVulcan declined to speedy delete and the initial version of the last time that this was created, discussed at AFD, and deleted by consensus is this.

  So: How many times are we to go around this loop, with pretty much the same content re-created again and again, the article being cleaned up from a bad start again and again, the same 4 sources found again and again, and consensus being to delete having reviewed those sources and a cleaned up article, again and again? It's looking to be twice this year alone. How many times will that be by the time that we get to the 2020s? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The bidding process has not even begun (the article linked to some discussions, but that is just WP:SPECULATION). Further, there is nothing to even say about it. There is no compelling reason to keep this article. -- Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more reason: consensus was reached twice before and appears to be reached here a third time to delete the article. - Lord Roem (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and it's too many years in the future. It doesn't have much info about it, either. WAYNESLAM 21:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete: G4 Having now seen the previous versions of the page. Furthermore, the previous incarnations of the page contained the same copyvio passages as were in this incarnation before they were excised. This raises suspicions of sockpuppetry for the article creator. Although, as is also evidenced in the history, if one was going to commit a copyvio, one would probably wind up copying the same sources. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The event is 22 years away and the bidding doesn't start till 2023. Intoronto1125 (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Way to long from now to guarantee. If Wikipedia is still in use 15 years from now,then it would be appropriate to include this. Sumsum2010·T·C 23:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article's references clearly show that movement is underway in some areas to lobby for these games. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I want to direct you to the actual references. The LA ref doesn't even say they are bidding. It discusses a single request the Council will consider. It is far from being an actual bid. The second LA ref is just another councilman saying "it's a good idea", but again, not a bid or even an agreement to launch a bid. Lastly, the San Diego one is just another bit of discussion about it. The article itself could even conclude the *opposite* way because it says a key agreement with another city feel through. All in all, there is no foundation for this article. Even if a bit exists, the cracks in it make it ready to collapse. :) Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with you that I think sometimes editors can accept the fact that there is a citation without actually reading in detail what that source states. Zarcadia (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is nothing wrong with having this article. If you look at the history of the 2028 Olympic page, it was made twenty two years before the event. That's really equivalent to having this article now. Besides, unless it is salted it is likely to be created in the coming years anyways. To address those who believe that this is a good example of a crystal ball, a lot of articles here violate that but they don't harm anyone. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• 20-Mule-Team Delete: If the Keep proponents don't AGREE with WP:CRYSTAL, they should go to the WP:NOT talk page to attempt to sway consensus to overturn the policy; AfD is not the venue to do that. But that aside, it troubles me to see the number of people whose vote so blatantly is "I don't give a damn about Wikipedia policy."  Ravenswing  20:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the flipside one can argue to ignore all rules Zarcadia (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]
    • I think highly of invoking IAR where an obvious result is being held up by process worship for the sake of process worship. I think very little of invoking IAR in cases where someone just doesn't like a rule, wishes it would go away and doesn't have the consensus to change or overturn it. This isn't a matter of WP:CRYSTAL standing in the way of a helpful outcome. This is a matter of WP:CRYSTAL being a black-letter policy invalidating this article, period. There are certainly a bunch of Wikipedia rules that bug me, but I don't get to pretend they don't exist on that basis alone.  Ravenswing  05:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is way too far into the future. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete, the event is more than 14 years into the future, anything can happen during that period. 112.210.146.100 (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC) — 112.210.146.100 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • You're right, 2032 is well past 2015. But why were you fooling around with the article tag? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete, agree with the previous and past statements. 2025 (the date when winning bid is expected to be announced) is too far off into the future. An article for an event that is too far off in the future is not yet needed as anything can happen in 14 years between now and the day that the winning bid is announced. Rxlxm (talk) 08:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The references in this article are very weak. There is no mention of 2032 at http://www.gamesbids.com, where 2020 bids are discussed frequently but not much beyond that. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• For closing admin I think a salting is in order until more information could be added to the article (which likely be years) consensus is clear. Secret ^account 21:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - far too much speculation. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and salt - repeatedly re-created textbook example of speculation. Bearian (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which part is the speculation: That there will be an Olympics in 2032? Or that there will be a year 2032? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't be obtuse. You know he means speculation over host city. Zarcadia (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't be a jerk. That's an argument for fixing the article's content, not for deleting the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your comment was nothing to do with improving the article and that is plain to see. Please don't resort to name-calling and observe Wikipedia:CIVIL. Thanks. Zarcadia (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • What, "obtuse" is not name-calling? And how does deleting the article improve it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you really want to be pedantic then describing you as obtuse is not name-calling whereas calling me a 'jerk' definitely is. Anyway, back to the case at hand, where did I say deleting the article would improve it? Did you read the talk page? If you look at the fourth comment down I recommended a Weak keep. Hopefully you are adult enough to move on. Thanks. Zarcadia (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Girls, girls, that's enough. Am I going to have to bring in the spray-bottle? HalfShadow 22:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well, I was just about to comment that (1) I didn't call him a jerk; and (2) your comment is the first valid statement I've seen here as to why the article should be deleted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth, I meant that it might not happen. The Olympics have been cancelled before (e.g., 1940 and 1944) in World War II. It was devastated in 1980 by a boycott during the Cold War. Who knows, World War III could happen by that time. At this point, the 2032 or 2036 Olympuis are science fiction -- IMHO. Bearian (talk) 15:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Future event, but reference to activities of preparation of it are provided. It is not 20 years in the future, but seven years in the future. The host city is selected seven years in advance (2025) and the candidacy process takes at least 8 years (2017). Hektor (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Okay, so it's a probable (I'd go so far as to say likely) event, but it's so far into the future, there's simply no point in having an article on it yet. It'd have to be an effectively blank page for almost twenty-one years. HalfShadow 21:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with other Winter and Summer Olympics that are too far ahead to merit yet their own individual articles (2028, 2030, etc.) Readers can wonder in general about future events (e.g. how might bidding, selection, preparation, and even dating go?) and we can give them as much hard or stubby information as we have now. [Some totalitarian countries that see the Olympics as a world battleground for national pride will no doubt be picking infants to train for the 2028 Olympics very soon. To those nations, such far-off dates are not contingent abstractions, unlike, say, United States presidential election, 2028.] As more substantial information or sourcing becomes available for the first one or two of them, they can be spun off. The same should apply to such other non-annual but regularly-timed sporting tournaments as the FIFA World Cup, Ryder Cup and America's Cup. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:44, 6 January 2011 (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.