- 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. Not really a "speedy" deletion as this is being closed after a week long AFD, but WP:CSD#G5 does apply here, and that also precludes sending this to draft space. The article was previously a redirect to the Winter Olympics, but that article doesn't mention the 2034 games. In any case, an article is expected here in due course as the event draws closer, but consensus is that it is too soon for an article for the time being. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
2034 Winter Olympics
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- 2034 Winter Olympics ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Currently not fit for mainspace through WP:CRYSTAL as none of the locations (only 2) have been announced as official candidates. A previous AfD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bids for the 2034 Winter Olympics) established notability, which is why this AfD is being used to draftify the article. A previous user attempted to draftify without discussion, which was reverted by another user. Originally, this article was a redirect, which was removed and changed into this speculation article by a now blocked WP:SOCK. Elijahandskip ( talk) 15:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Move to draft. More than likely there will be a 2034 Winter Olympics, but there is not much to say about it now. BD2412 T 15:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per keep outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bids for the 2034 Winter Olympics, as the nominator acknowledges. St Anselm ( talk) 16:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Procedural keepper keep outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bids for the 2034 Winter Olympics. That discussion recently closed as keep and no new information has emerged since that close. -- Enos733 ( talk) 16:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- If you say that, then there should not have been an issue with the original draftification since the page creator (not redirect creator, but person who removed the redirect to create this speculation article). So if this is kept based on procedural grounds, I will be draftifying it based on procedural grounds of disruptive editing by a blocked
WP:SOCK.
Elijahandskip (
talk) 16:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, struck bolded !vote to evaluate the sock. That said, I think we should be less focused on the formalities here. Multiple editors have edited the page, a discussion was closed as "keep," past precedent is that this is not a violation of
WP:CRYSTAL, and a page will be created in the near future as RS coverage will cover other cities mulling bids or speculation after the 2030 Olympics are awarded. --
Enos733 (
talk) 17:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, where does it say that all articles created by socks must necessarily be deleted? It seems unfair to other editors who added content, such as
User:HiltonCalifornia
here.
St
Anselm (
talk) 17:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- From past comments from admins, it is obvious that SOCK/tban/block evasion edits are disruptive to Wikipedia. While it doesn’t mean all have to be deleted, they should be considered disruptive to begin with, then determine if they really do improve or hurt the article. Also, this isn’t meaning to delete the article, but rather draftify it. Elijahandskip ( talk) 17:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- HiltonCalifornia has today been blocked as a sock of the same user. --
Lord Belbury (
talk) 11:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yep! As I suspected, they were the same sock that tried to start this article in the first place. So to answer that quick question/comment, no, the disruptive edits from HiltonCalifornia should not be a reason to keep the article. lol. Elijahandskip ( talk) 12:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) Yep. The main problem for me was the article contained (now removed) speculation material and that it was created by a disruptive and well-known sock. Per the guidelines, it is generally best to draftify an article older than 90 days through an AfD, which is all this is. This is basically just a whether or not this should be in mainspace at the present moment, not a “delete or keep”. Basically, this use to be a redirect, then created by a sock through disruptive editing. Will this be a page in the future, easily and a super amazing one. But in 2022, there is just speculation information about it (plus creation by a disruptive sock). So yeah, this discussion is just a draftification discussion, not really an “AfD”. Elijahandskip ( talk) 17:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, where does it say that all articles created by socks must necessarily be deleted? It seems unfair to other editors who added content, such as
User:HiltonCalifornia
here.
St
Anselm (
talk) 17:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, struck bolded !vote to evaluate the sock. That said, I think we should be less focused on the formalities here. Multiple editors have edited the page, a discussion was closed as "keep," past precedent is that this is not a violation of
WP:CRYSTAL, and a page will be created in the near future as RS coverage will cover other cities mulling bids or speculation after the 2030 Olympics are awarded. --
Enos733 (
talk) 17:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- If you say that, then there should not have been an issue with the original draftification since the page creator (not redirect creator, but person who removed the redirect to create this speculation article). So if this is kept based on procedural grounds, I will be draftifying it based on procedural grounds of disruptive editing by a blocked
WP:SOCK.
Elijahandskip (
talk) 16:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Move to draft This is far too soon to have an article for, as even the 2030 Games have not yet been awarded yet. This page will be appropriate after that, consistent with having one unawarded Games article at a time. I don't think there is significant coverage about these games themselves or the bids that will be made. It is only speculative that Girona and Salt Lake City may bid if they do not get 2030, merely stating the year in the sources rather than specifics about the 2034 Games and legitimate bids. Reywas92 Talk 17:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't think the article as it stands is speculative at all. Salt Lake City is, now, currently, exploring a 2034 bid.
St
Anselm (
talk) 18:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Salt Lake City is currently actively bidding for the 2030 Winter Olympics. While they are exploring bidding for 2034 as an alternative to 2030 if they are not awarded it, I do not see this as the basis for an article at this point, just to make this point. Reywas92 Talk 18:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Nor is it crystal-balling to say that there will be a 2034 Winter Olympics. That was never what the policy meant. Of course, we do have to draw the line somewhere - we're not going to have a
2134 Winter Olympics article - but the established consensus from the last AfD discussion is that it is not too soon. This nomination is borderline disruptive, to be honest.
St
Anselm (
talk) 18:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- This is what WP:CRYSTAL actually says: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred... Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." All these things clearly apply to this article. St Anselm ( talk) 18:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- While I don’t think this article belongs in main space at the moment, I fear if it is draftified, it will be deleted per WP:G13. I’m split between draftification and outright deletion, as it shouldn’t be that hard to build up. 173.68.184.70 ( talk) 19:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to Olympic Games article. X-Editor ( talk) 00:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy G5, article content was written by Cabin134 and HiltonCalifornia, two sockpuppets of the same blocked account. Only other contribution was an IP adding Sweden, which was later removed as speculative. -- Lord Belbury ( talk) 11:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- I would consider keeping the page up as there is discussion about the 2034 edition now. A few months ago I would have said no to this, but things have changed since. -- IndustryPlantCooper ( talk) 16:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- IndustryPlantCooper, things have changed indeed. A sock editor was determined to create and make this article, which should not have been made yet. Also, this AfD is not meant to be a “Keep vs Delete” situation, but rather a “Keep in mainspace vs Keep in draftspace” situation. The main issue is the mainspace edition was created by a sock editor on two accounts, meaning it was created and mostly improved by a disruptive editor. It is better to push this into draftspace, let other non-disruptive editors improve it, then move it back in the future. Elijahandskip ( talk) 17:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect Return this article to its original Redirect status. I don't think Delete is a good solution when the original redirect was fine and a move to Draft space will either result in a) deletion in six months because no editor will spend time working on this article so distant from the event or b) a premature return back to main space which will result in AFD #2 for this article. Let it return to being a redirect to Winter Olympic Games. Liz Read! Talk! 21:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per WP:G5. No objection to recreation of a redirect after the article history is completely deleted. No reason to keep a sock's creation in the editing history. 4meter4 ( talk) 01:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 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. Not really a "speedy" deletion as this is being closed after a week long AFD, but WP:CSD#G5 does apply here, and that also precludes sending this to draft space. The article was previously a redirect to the Winter Olympics, but that article doesn't mention the 2034 games. In any case, an article is expected here in due course as the event draws closer, but consensus is that it is too soon for an article for the time being. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
2034 Winter Olympics
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- 2034 Winter Olympics ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Currently not fit for mainspace through WP:CRYSTAL as none of the locations (only 2) have been announced as official candidates. A previous AfD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bids for the 2034 Winter Olympics) established notability, which is why this AfD is being used to draftify the article. A previous user attempted to draftify without discussion, which was reverted by another user. Originally, this article was a redirect, which was removed and changed into this speculation article by a now blocked WP:SOCK. Elijahandskip ( talk) 15:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Move to draft. More than likely there will be a 2034 Winter Olympics, but there is not much to say about it now. BD2412 T 15:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per keep outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bids for the 2034 Winter Olympics, as the nominator acknowledges. St Anselm ( talk) 16:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Procedural keepper keep outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bids for the 2034 Winter Olympics. That discussion recently closed as keep and no new information has emerged since that close. -- Enos733 ( talk) 16:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- If you say that, then there should not have been an issue with the original draftification since the page creator (not redirect creator, but person who removed the redirect to create this speculation article). So if this is kept based on procedural grounds, I will be draftifying it based on procedural grounds of disruptive editing by a blocked
WP:SOCK.
Elijahandskip (
talk) 16:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, struck bolded !vote to evaluate the sock. That said, I think we should be less focused on the formalities here. Multiple editors have edited the page, a discussion was closed as "keep," past precedent is that this is not a violation of
WP:CRYSTAL, and a page will be created in the near future as RS coverage will cover other cities mulling bids or speculation after the 2030 Olympics are awarded. --
Enos733 (
talk) 17:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, where does it say that all articles created by socks must necessarily be deleted? It seems unfair to other editors who added content, such as
User:HiltonCalifornia
here.
St
Anselm (
talk) 17:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- From past comments from admins, it is obvious that SOCK/tban/block evasion edits are disruptive to Wikipedia. While it doesn’t mean all have to be deleted, they should be considered disruptive to begin with, then determine if they really do improve or hurt the article. Also, this isn’t meaning to delete the article, but rather draftify it. Elijahandskip ( talk) 17:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- HiltonCalifornia has today been blocked as a sock of the same user. --
Lord Belbury (
talk) 11:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yep! As I suspected, they were the same sock that tried to start this article in the first place. So to answer that quick question/comment, no, the disruptive edits from HiltonCalifornia should not be a reason to keep the article. lol. Elijahandskip ( talk) 12:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) Yep. The main problem for me was the article contained (now removed) speculation material and that it was created by a disruptive and well-known sock. Per the guidelines, it is generally best to draftify an article older than 90 days through an AfD, which is all this is. This is basically just a whether or not this should be in mainspace at the present moment, not a “delete or keep”. Basically, this use to be a redirect, then created by a sock through disruptive editing. Will this be a page in the future, easily and a super amazing one. But in 2022, there is just speculation information about it (plus creation by a disruptive sock). So yeah, this discussion is just a draftification discussion, not really an “AfD”. Elijahandskip ( talk) 17:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, where does it say that all articles created by socks must necessarily be deleted? It seems unfair to other editors who added content, such as
User:HiltonCalifornia
here.
St
Anselm (
talk) 17:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, struck bolded !vote to evaluate the sock. That said, I think we should be less focused on the formalities here. Multiple editors have edited the page, a discussion was closed as "keep," past precedent is that this is not a violation of
WP:CRYSTAL, and a page will be created in the near future as RS coverage will cover other cities mulling bids or speculation after the 2030 Olympics are awarded. --
Enos733 (
talk) 17:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- If you say that, then there should not have been an issue with the original draftification since the page creator (not redirect creator, but person who removed the redirect to create this speculation article). So if this is kept based on procedural grounds, I will be draftifying it based on procedural grounds of disruptive editing by a blocked
WP:SOCK.
Elijahandskip (
talk) 16:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Move to draft This is far too soon to have an article for, as even the 2030 Games have not yet been awarded yet. This page will be appropriate after that, consistent with having one unawarded Games article at a time. I don't think there is significant coverage about these games themselves or the bids that will be made. It is only speculative that Girona and Salt Lake City may bid if they do not get 2030, merely stating the year in the sources rather than specifics about the 2034 Games and legitimate bids. Reywas92 Talk 17:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't think the article as it stands is speculative at all. Salt Lake City is, now, currently, exploring a 2034 bid.
St
Anselm (
talk) 18:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Salt Lake City is currently actively bidding for the 2030 Winter Olympics. While they are exploring bidding for 2034 as an alternative to 2030 if they are not awarded it, I do not see this as the basis for an article at this point, just to make this point. Reywas92 Talk 18:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Nor is it crystal-balling to say that there will be a 2034 Winter Olympics. That was never what the policy meant. Of course, we do have to draw the line somewhere - we're not going to have a
2134 Winter Olympics article - but the established consensus from the last AfD discussion is that it is not too soon. This nomination is borderline disruptive, to be honest.
St
Anselm (
talk) 18:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- This is what WP:CRYSTAL actually says: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred... Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." All these things clearly apply to this article. St Anselm ( talk) 18:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- While I don’t think this article belongs in main space at the moment, I fear if it is draftified, it will be deleted per WP:G13. I’m split between draftification and outright deletion, as it shouldn’t be that hard to build up. 173.68.184.70 ( talk) 19:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to Olympic Games article. X-Editor ( talk) 00:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy G5, article content was written by Cabin134 and HiltonCalifornia, two sockpuppets of the same blocked account. Only other contribution was an IP adding Sweden, which was later removed as speculative. -- Lord Belbury ( talk) 11:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- I would consider keeping the page up as there is discussion about the 2034 edition now. A few months ago I would have said no to this, but things have changed since. -- IndustryPlantCooper ( talk) 16:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- IndustryPlantCooper, things have changed indeed. A sock editor was determined to create and make this article, which should not have been made yet. Also, this AfD is not meant to be a “Keep vs Delete” situation, but rather a “Keep in mainspace vs Keep in draftspace” situation. The main issue is the mainspace edition was created by a sock editor on two accounts, meaning it was created and mostly improved by a disruptive editor. It is better to push this into draftspace, let other non-disruptive editors improve it, then move it back in the future. Elijahandskip ( talk) 17:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect Return this article to its original Redirect status. I don't think Delete is a good solution when the original redirect was fine and a move to Draft space will either result in a) deletion in six months because no editor will spend time working on this article so distant from the event or b) a premature return back to main space which will result in AFD #2 for this article. Let it return to being a redirect to Winter Olympic Games. Liz Read! Talk! 21:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per WP:G5. No objection to recreation of a redirect after the article history is completely deleted. No reason to keep a sock's creation in the editing history. 4meter4 ( talk) 01:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.