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 speedy keep, linked from main page. Remove from there first, then nominate for deletion. Discussion should be at Template talk:In the news. Thank you. Kusma (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Summer Olympics highlights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

An article for the 2008 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 will most definitely generate problems with Neutral point of view. Additionally it is inconsistent with Wikipedia:Manual of Style and with the articles for previous Olympic games and other athletic events.Becky Sayles (talk) 06:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator.Becky Sayles (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are the nominator. We already know your position... Thankyoubaby (talk) 06:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Very surprised this is even nominated. Thankyoubaby (talk) 06:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are you surprised? do you have any reason to support keeping it?Becky Sayles (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Can we close this AfD yet? The article is obviously going to be kept. Benjaminx (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, it's been up for less than a day. Editors in other time zones should be given the opportunity to comment. Please attempt to discuss reasons for deleting or keeping this article.Becky Sayles (talk) 07:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not necessary to nominate this article for deletion. CoolKid1993 (talk) 06:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any explanation for why it's not necessary?Becky Sayles (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - very useful to readers... Chalisa (talk) 06:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • user has less than 10 edits
• Speedy keep very poor nomination. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • user does not address nominationBecky Sayles (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for that little note, but I don't need to be messaged on my talk page. I think this was a very poor nomination, firstly because it is a necessary article chronicling the progress of the 2008 Olympic Games. It meets the criteria for inclusion as it is a comprehensive tracking of the accrued gold medals, and this is within the encyclpedic "plane" in my experience. I strongly advise the nominator than haranguing the keepers will not result in a change of result for this AfD of an article that fully deserves to be kept and should not have been nominated in the first place. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No article is "necessary", so it is unclear what you mean. Don't 2008 Summer Olympics and associated articles adequately chronicle the games? Why is it necessary to have it information in a format that seems motivated more by the editors who want to keep up with current events than by the people who will read it? What criteria for inclusion are you suggesting? Encyclopedias typically do not take this form, wikipedia is not a blog nor is it a news feed.Becky Sayles (talk) 07:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. The article you mention does chronicle the games, but not as completely as the article you have nominated for deletion does. While the information on the nominated page is necessary, it would extend the length of the base article ridiculously if the two were amalgamated. Your second and third sentences don't make sense; Wikipedia articles don't need to be read by anyone to be included. If no-one read the article on Bede (or <insert obscure but notable person here>) simply because no-one cared about him anymore, do you think it likely we'd omit him from the enyclopedia? No. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wikipedia is not a blog. The information in this article already exists on that page and other pages. Also, the point was that the page is being maintained by a editors who find it more convenient to edit on one page as if it were a blog, rather than to organize the information into the pages that were created for that purpose. The obscurity of any article is not an issue. Becky Sayles (talk) 08:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You believe any article updated rapidly and quickly as events transpire is a blog? This is silly. Th epage created for the purpose of keeping track of new world records and medal achievements is this one. I repeat, this is the page. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Please do not presume to know what I believe. Wikipedia is not a blog, nor is it Wikinews. This is not the page for such information, as it does not belong in Wikipedia. The information present in this article belongs on 2008 Summer Olympics and related articles created to contain sport-specific information. Becky Sayles (talk) 08:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)'[reply]
                • I will not presume to know what you believe, but please do not presume that I am interested in commenting any further on this AfD. Thus far, you have templated me on my talk page with a bogus warning of personal attack, engaged in heated discussion with me here and on your talk when the said discussion could have been perfectly cordial, and we are now going around in circles. My views are aforementioned; please read them, they are perfectly sane reasons for why this page should be kept. Thanks. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Uh yeah, no. Follows in the tradition of 2006 Winter Olympics highlights and is perfectly acceptable. Geologik (talk) 06:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ok, I'm nominating that one too.Becky Sayles (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's unfortunate, that instead of working to improve articles, ridiculous exercises such as this pull people away constructive contributions. It's also too bad that Wikipedians can't nominate their fellow editors for deletion. ;) Geologik (talk) 07:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Becky Sayles, please be aware of WP:POINT. Depending on the outcome of this AfD the other one will surely be dealt with the same way. Geologic, although I appreciate you're being lighthearted, please don't address the nominator - address the nomination Witty Lama 07:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's very useful actually, and the fact that it is incosistent with articles on previous Olympics is actually a critique directed at those articles, not this one. Timbouctou (talk) 06:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is this article useful? how is that a criterion for being kept? It reads like a blog, and simply duplicates information already present in other articles more appropriately organized under the page for the 2008 Olympic games and related individual sports. Becky Sayles (talk) 06:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --KSA¹³ 06:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Afd is not a vote.Becky Sayles (talk) 06:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep no valid rationale given for deletion. JuJube (talk) 06:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is invalid about removing duplicated information from existing, better organized articles? Becky Sayles (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You do not give a valid rationale for deletion. "Not encyclopedic", "possible NPOV violations" and "not consistent with MOS" are reasons to cleanup, not delete. JuJube (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • So isn't duplicating material from other articles a good reason for deletion. There is already a page 2008 Summer Olympics for the games. Also, there are individual pages for sports results:

There's no legitimate purpose for keeping this page. It's basically a blog for a current event.Becky Sayles (talk) 06:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - useful and important part of the series of articles regarding the olympics, a source of concise results information for readers. this article is a good place to document the games as they unfold and should be kept for the duration of the games, however we could consider merging the articles once the games are through. - preschooler@heart 06:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you're saying keep and then merge? doesn't make sense. See WP:NOT. If readers want a source of concise results they can go to the official website for the games or any of the olympics related websites. We don't need an article on the games, and then another article on the highlights of the games. It doesn't make sense. Becky Sayles (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am saying that the information covered in this article is important and useful in the context of the event covered, and I can speak from my own edits that the information collected is from varied sources to form a rounded coverage of the topic presented. Like an encyclopedia. Which, from my best deductive skills, is what we're going for with this whole silly wiki"pedia" notion. And if we decide later that it's appropriate to merge it with the main article, that's for a different time, but at least for the duration of the games this article has served as a "Current Events section for the olympic coverage.- preschooler@heart 07:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. This information very well could be on the main article for the 2008 Olympics, but that article is way too long already, and it's a good thing that this is split off by itself. Benjaminx (talk) 06:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is it a good thing to be split off? It doesn't just duplicate information from 2008 Summer Olympics, it copies from the individual sports articles too. If it doesn't belong in the main article, and it doesn't belong in the individual sports articles, then it doesn't belong in it's own article.Becky Sayles (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does belong in the main article, but there's not enough room. That page is already way too big for many users without broadband, so it has subarticles like this one. Also, I think it's snowing. Benjaminx (talk) 07:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's been up for less than a day.Becky Sayles (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep BeckySayles should wait a month after the Olympics end so that articles are no longer in flux. This article is of use at the moment at the very least. 70.55.85.40 (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Listen, a dozen+ people have voted keep. Only you Sayles wants to delete. Is this a democratic vote or not? The individual sports articles have nearly ZERO content aside from numbers and names. This hilight page gives some human aspects to the events at the Olympics. For example, being the first gold medalist for your country ever is an interesting and exciting event not normally mentioned in individual articles. Being on the verge of defeat is something you can't deduce from simple numbers.76.124.8.58 (talk) 07:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually no, it's not a democratic vote. See WP:POLLS. How does it give human aspects to the events? and if it does, shouldn't that be moved to the individual articles? or described in words on those articles? Becky Sayles (talk) 07:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right - this is not a vote. A sheer weight of numbers pushing for one outcome or the other has no value here. Rather, it is the weight of the arguments. Witty Lama 07:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Becky Sayles, I appreciate that "it's interesting" is not a valid reason for an article. However, your pointing out that it is duplicate information does not warrant its deletion. As it is, the Olympics wikiproject decided against having articles for every day of competition. Rather they keep the information on the pages for the various nations and also for the various sports. And so, although the information on who won what event is listed elsewhere, this page represents the only place on Wikipedia where the information is presented all in the one place and chronologically. This format for viewing the information is unique and also encyclopedic as it does show the sequence of medals - important historically. Witty Lama 07:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the Olympics wikiproject made such decisions, then why does this page exist? If consensus was already reached that chronological documentation of events was unwanted, then that would suggest this page should be deleted.Becky Sayles (talk) 07:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that there are no daily pages because of this page, not in spite of it. I presume that if this page, and others like, it were deleted then there would be a re-looking at the creating daily pages. I personally would like to see both but somehow I don't think you'd agree. :-) Witty Lama 07:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What purpose would it serve to have either? Doesn't it make sense to have the information in the pages that are easily identified by name? like Gymnastics_at_the_2008_Summer_Olympics. If someone wants to learn about that, then they can click on the link thats on the main article for the games? And if they're looking for information related to specific days of the games, that's listed on the main article in the form of a table.Becky Sayles (talk) 07:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Not necessary, semi-OR and belongs on Wikinews. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that "highlights" is subjective. Case in point being that every gold/silver/bronze medal winner country will think their medal in one or other event is a 'big deal' and thus can be considered a 'highlight'. So the title alone is highly subjective. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I would like to point out that the vast majority of the editors who wish to keep this article are relying on the WP:USEFUL argument and or otherwise WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, neither are valid rationales for keeping an article under AfD. WP:NOT#NEWS would be a good rationale for deleting this. Also, the article's premise is fatally flawed by its subjectivity. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a highly unnecessary article which really belongs on wikinews (and probably already exists there). Its highly subjective, and frankly violates WP:NPOV. It could spiral into an unmanageable list if every single thing that happens at the olympics which receives media coverage is chronicled in this page. As someone pointed out above "it provides good coverage" that is what news stories do, not encyclopedic articles. It also violates WP:OR in that editors are making judgement calls about what they feel is a notable highlight and what they feel is not. I strongly urge any closing admin to take a long look at relevant policy and those arguing for keep. I haven't seen a single policy reason given that would support keeping this page. If people like it so much they can maintain it on wikinews where it belongs.--Crossmr (talk) 10:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The deletion template was removed from the article by an IP for a few hours. I've since restored it.--Crossmr (talk) 10:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is not a paper Encyclopedia where there is a dearth of empty pages. This page serves as a one stop glance for all the events going on and there result without having the need to go to every individual page, which in itself is a cumbersome task. This page should be mantained and in my opinion the man who proposed deletion should be banned from using Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbytheonlyone (talk • contribs) 10:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per many voices above. Perfectly useful and concise article. - Darwinek (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Subject is significant enough to have it's own page rather than being lost amongst and clogging up wikinews. Article is extremely useful and judging by the amount of support it is worthwhile keeping. Lympathy ^Talk 11:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  It does have its own page, several in fact. It being useful has no bearing on allowing it to skirt policy.--Crossmr (talk) 11:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment - I would also like to add that the article is very neutral as all gold medallists are included and only other things are listed such as clear blockbuster events, records and firsts. Also this is the only place on wikipedia that chronologically evokes the olympic experience. This page can also work as a porthole to wikinews. Lympathy ^Talk 11:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "highlights" is a highly subjective view if we are picking themselves and an incredibly broad one if we are leaving it to the worlds media (all countries will have their own view on the highlights centric to their own athletes) Viridae^Talk 11:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Almost all of the articles about former Olympic Games have a highlights section. Why are you think that it's better to write Olympic Highlights after the Games, when we can do it continously in the 16 days? 11:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.155.59 (talk)
• Delete, deciding what is a highlight or not violates WP:NPOV. Stifle (talk) 12:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable and viable topic for an article, given that this is a major worldwide event and to merge this information into the main article would make it too long. This therefore is a reasonable split. Stifle and others actually make a good point that the name of the article could be interpreted as an NPOV violation, so I would suggest a possible renaming might be in order (if this occurs, the similar Olympics articles will need to also be renamed for consistency). However that is a content issue. All I care about is the viability of this article, and this article is definitely viable. After the Olympics conclude, there will probably be a need to trim the article a little, but that can be addresse later. 23skidoo (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—It is a useful article, which is not particularly vulnerable to NPOV concerns. If it continues to be careful to be consistent, ie mentioning all gold medal winners and all qualifers to finals if any are mentionned then NPOV should not be a concern.--Grahame (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. I appeal to all other editors to support this because all it serves to do is further stratify the information of the Games. There is some information not found elsewhere but it is mainly trivial. No one has defined "highlight", which confirms my belief that it's violating WP:NPOV (Isn't a gold medal a highlight? - which really negates its use, see List of 2008 Summer Olympics medal winners). Editors here are deciding what takes precedence, not the reader. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • - All gold medals are listed on the page, text is added for records and achievements (like team through to second round). I can't see anything on this article that violates WP:NPOV. It seems what editors want here is merely a definition of the word "highlight" which can be more defined over time. To delete an article at such an early stage seems like we are not giving it a chance, saying it may violate, when so far it hasn't. Lympathy ^Talk 13:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and comment above. What is a highlight? And the medal table will suffice for most purposes. The keeps seem to be leaning on ITSUSEFUL and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and so far I cannot see a cogent argument being put for retaining. In fact some of the keep comment seem to be leaning towards bullying the nominator, such as asking for a quick close before it has gone around the world. If anyone can provide a policy based reason for keeping this then I would like to see it. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom and Nick Dowling. This belongs on Wikinews, see wikinews:Olympic highlights: August 10, 2008 and wikinews:Olympic highlights: August 11, 2008. JACOPLANE • 2008-08-11 13:54
• Keep. If "highlight" is the issue, then why is this not a move request? The "policy based reason" is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and this page presents content in a reader-friendly format not otherwise found on the site. People seem to think that this page consists of editors adding "My cousin Tony thinks archery is lame", when the page is a strictly sourced summary mainly consisting of broken world records, national firsts, and gold medal tables, with about as little color commentary as can be imagined. If a reader wants to know, "What records were broken in the 2008 Summer Olympics?", "Were there any countries who won gold after Olympic droughts?" or even "I don't recall what happened during the 2008 Summer Olympics. I wonder if Wikipedia has a page that can summarize the sporting events with a few directed comments on when something unusual happened", then this is the page. If you delete this page, you force the reader to investigate several dozen individual event pages to find the same info, and then cross check with the competitor bio or national Olympic page to see if there is relevant info about significance not captured in the tables. Many times "it's useful" doesn't mean ITSUSEFUL. - BanyanTree 14:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Its sourced, its notable, and the article can go into more detail than the main 2008 Olympics article can, which keeps it from being redundant. As an aside, I think its getting snowy in here. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. This nomination achieves nothing but to make Wikipedia a laughingstock to the general public. Lampman (talk) 14:31, 11 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.