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 of the debate was no consensus. —Cleared as filed. 16:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page was created by a user who seems determined to prevent the main article, 2012 Summer Olympics, from being a comprehensive main article about the 2012 Summer Olympics. This is surely exactly what one would expect it to be, and I am unable to fathom why anyone would oppose it. The nominated article was set up after a belated concession that it was no longer appropriate for the article about London's bid to be the principal article and to be updated rather than 2012 Summer Olympics. But there is no need for it. The main article should cover all the key points, including development between 2005 and 2012, and break out articles should only be created as required - a point which we are nowhere near reaching for coverage of the development. A great deal of valuable information on other aspects of the 2012 Olympics was deleted from the main article when this one was created - as it had been deleted before - so that it was once again only in the bid article, which less and less people are likely to visit as time goes by. The main article should cover all the main aspects of the London Olympics, and I think that completely removing coverage of things like the budget and the transport situation from the main article is quite unreasonable. It is not in line with normal practice of having a comprehensive main article on a topic, and it reduces the clarity and accessibility of wikipedia's coverage of the 2012 Olympics. CalJW 02:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For a list of reasons to keep, please see the talk page. violet/riga (t) 23:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete CalJW 02:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "A great deal of valuable information on other aspects of the 2012 Olympics was deleted from the main article when this one was created - as it had been deleted before - so that it was once again only in the bid article, which less and less people are likely to visit as time goes by." is totally incorrect - no such content existed in the 2012 Summer Olympics article and saying that is biasing this vote. Further, "I think that completely removing coverage of things like the budget and the transport situation from the main article is quite unreasonable" is wrong, as nothing was removed from the article. violet/riga (t) 21:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge appropriately with 2012 Summer Olympics. However, we can do without the comment by a Lord Redesdale that Morris Dancing be included in the opening ceremony. Capitalistroadster 02:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The 2012 Summer Olympics article should be about the Olympics and not be swamped by the development or detailed specifics of the games - brief details should be included in that article, but it should be no more than an overview. The details of this article would not fit into any other one. This is a bad faith AfD from a user that disagrees with the arrangement but has refused to discuss it. violet/riga (t) 08:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, the arrangement is:
    • 2012 Summer Olympics is the main Olympics article
    • London 2012 Olympic bid contains the full details of the plan and organisation
    • 2012 Summer Olympic development shows all the changes to the original plan, along with other important announcements.
  • violet/riga (t) 09:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • • In my opinion these comments are not consistent with violet/riga (t) actions. I would ask users who are in doubt as to how to vote to visit the history of the article to look at the scale of the deletions which s/he has made from the article s/he now admits should be the main article. Main articles usually cover all the aspects of a topic, not just a few of them. Break out articles are usually written when length demands it, and at least a précis is left in the main article.
      • There is no justification for the personal attack. I am not acting in bad faith and have not refused to discuss the matter. violet/riga made no attempt to discuss matters with me before this nomination, and now, apart from the personal attack here, s/he has made another personal attack on my user page. These are not welcoming invitations to discussion. I am the one who has initiated discussion with my lengthy explanation of the reasons for nominating this article. I have seen swathes of an excellent article deleted and I have restored them, that is all. The main issue is that (t) does not seem to wish Wikipedia to have a thorough main article about the 2012 Summer Olympics. CalJW 13:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's rubbish. Those comments are consistent, and you have not attempted discussion prior to this nomination. You reverted lots of hard work without any discussion and called it the "devestation" of an article, which is frankly offensive (thus starting my dislike of your behaviour). The content removed from 2012 Summer Olympics is a seperate issue to whether this should be deleted or not, and it is all present in London 2012 Olympic bid anyway. Stop trying to act like you are saving our coverage from vandalism - all the content is present and much of it written by me anyway! violet/riga (t) 14:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • violet/riga seems to have a sense of personal There is more of the same on my talk page and on the main article's talk page. And this user is an administrator! I did not remove "hard work" as stated, I simply rearranged material in a way I consider to be better. violet/riga seems to feel that s/he has the right to do that, but people who disagree with him/her do not. CalJW 17:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • You reverted what I did without discussion and have now nominated something I've worked on for a long time for deletion. violet/riga (t) 17:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • • I restored a good main article to its prior state, which had stood for several months with just minor incremental amendments. I would do the same if someone removed major subsections of United States and I spotted it. I copied the content into the main article. It isn't relevant whether you put a lot of effort into creating a separate article as no-one owns a wikipedia article. The issue is what is best for Wikipedia. CalJW 17:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Your account of things is somewhat skewed. Anyway though, that is about a totally different article to this one, so we shouldn't keep discussing that here. violet/riga (t) 18:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge relevant sections to 2012 Summer Olympics, agreeing with CR. There is enough detail here to make such a move worthwhile, although I agree in principle with CalJW's well-stated point in his nomination. Dottore So 11:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I did the merge at the time of the nomination, though I doubt that it has survived this long. In any case, the text is in the article history, so the material is preserved and the desirability of retaining it need not inhibit deletion. CalJW 13:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per CalJW. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As there are still 7 more years before the event surely it's obvious that there will be more and more developments - it would need to be split off in the near future anyway. violet/riga (t) 15:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Violetriga. We have articles on minor Pokemon characters, Gundam weapons, and all kinds of Harry Pottercruft; surely we'd have room for news related to the most prominent worldwide athletic competition. --Idont Havaname 15:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that a breakout article might be appropriate at some point, but there is no need at present as the article is not up to the size limit. This article is part of an attempt to prevent the main article covering the whole of the topic in the way that any other main article does. We should continue to expand the main article until it hits the size limits and then create break-out articles. Even then the main article should contain a précis of each break-out article. That is normal practice. CalJW 17:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No - when it is obvious that an article is going to be overwhelmed by one part (in this case, announcements and developments) it should be split out. It's hardly the most important aspect of the Games and any really crucial developments will be noted in the article. Why merge it back in only to demerge it later on? violet/riga (t) 17:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In response to the previous comment, I should have made it clearer that even when more breakout articles are required, this should not be one of them. The title is poorly chosen. It is not a natural subsection of the main article, and this is reflected in the fact that violet/riga has chosen to subdivide it for the sake of clarity. More appropriate break out articles would cover natural main subsections of the main article such as transport and facilities. CalJW 22:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are too many things that won't fit into another article that would have to remain in 2012 Summer Olympics, bloating it. violet/riga (t) 22:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- main article will inevitably become big, and to me it seems sensible to keep that as a crisp summary, with the minutiae of developments in London on a separate page. (but may need a better title) mervyn 20:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If this continues it will end up with hundreds of factoids. This way of presenting information is hard to follow, and is not a proper article in my opinion. Honbicot 20:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the main 2012 Olympics page. Yes that article may become too big one day, but I do not feel that the whole of the conetent on this page is suitable to be absent from the main article, not do I agree that over time that this will be the best way to split up the main article. It is best to wait until the main article does reach it's limit in size and see what is the best way to split it up then rather than second guessing what the best course of action will be. Evil Eye 20:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Reluctant Delete, as long as another page or pages is/are quickly developed with relevant info in them so that the 2012 Olympic page does not become too bloated. My only problem with this page is its unilateral status, and the fact that its just a series of bullet points. This needs to be done collaberatively and properly Robdurbar 09:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The 2012 Olympics should be written in the style that VioletRiga has in mind, but I think he has gone over the top in his removal of info from the main article. Also, Im not sympathetic with the bullet point style of this article; however, I'm going to say Keep, as long as the aritcle is improvedRobdurbar 09:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bullet points will more than likely be flattened into real prose, but I was wanting to get some more details in before doing that. violet/riga (t) 10:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As best I can tell from its current content, the intention of this article seems to be to present information on the games in a chronologically sequenced format. It seems to me that this is an entirely desirable piece of organised data for Wikipedia to have. Obviously we also need an article in a more narrative form, and it seems to me that trying to have both in the same article would be less than desirable. So lets have two interlinked articles, one (this) in chronological sequence, the other (2012 Summer Olympics) in traditional narrative form. -- Chris j wood 12:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Odd title. I guess it's a version of "History of the 2012 Summer Olympics" but they haven't happened yet and I don't think they'll merit a "History of" article when they have. Carina22 15:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any Olympic Games is really made up of three phases. There is a bidding phase lasting several years, then there is a development phase of seven years, then two weeks of phrenetic sporting competition. Frankly I think phases 1 and 2 are much more interesting than phase 3, but that is my POV. In the case of the 2012 games, we are already through the bidding phase and several months into the development phase, so it is way too simplistic to say they 'havn't happened yet'. As for your thoughts on whether they merit a history article, that is your POV. If there are enough people interested enough to write a good article, they merit that article. -- Chris j wood 16:06, 14 November 2005 (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.