Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2000 Summer Olympics closing ceremony

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 keep. SarahStierch (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2000 Summer Olympics closing ceremony[edit]

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

Way too long and contains a lot of copyright violations, possibly even the vast majority of it, but I didn't check all of it. I redirected it to the relevant section in the 2000 Olympics, but creator reverted. Another editor reverted the creator, but the creator reverted that editor. Yet another editor reverted the creator, but the creator reverted again. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I removed all the copyvio and all the images except one tagged for copyvio deletion. There's basically nothing left. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am proposing redirecting, not deleting. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 07:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to me that the problems are best dealt with by good editing. The opening and closing ceremonies have a huge international audience and an enduring cultural significance if only because comparisons are inevitably made between them later. More than a brief mention in the main article for each Games would give undue emphasis, and the content should be dealt with separately just as the sporting activities themselves are given their own articles. --AJHingston (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We do have separate articles about a number of other Olympics closing ceremonies, see Category:Olympics closing ceremonies and Template:Olympic Games closing ceremonies. This particular article is a bit of a mess at the moment, lacking wikilinks and reliable independent sources, but I have little doubt a decent article could be written if someone wants to do it. In the meantime I'm inclined to see this as an editing issue rather than one for AfD: the topic is almost certainly notable, but editors could decide, in the exercise of editorial discretion and using our normal processes for editorial discussion, to merge this back into the main article until there's enough valid content to justify a separate article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge I agree with the others that this is an editing issue. In the current state, it should be redirected and merged. It has been a redirect for awhile. If it is improved, then keep. Bgwhite (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability and wealth of sources are clear. Doctorhawkes (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are exactly zero sources... I don't think you read the article. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 03:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I wasn't clear. I meant there are plenty of sources available to be used.Doctorhawkes (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok. Well I am talking specifically about this article in its current form right now which has almost zero content. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article in its present state is not as nominated. There is nothing to stop information in copyright material being summarised and rewritten in encyclopaedic style - see the page history for material and sources removed. Finding pictures that can be used will be more difficult, but that is true for most articles and does not prevent the creation of a satisfactory article. --AJHingston (talk) 10:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. An article being in a poor state is not a valid reason for deletion. Article probably needs to be gutted and rebooted. Hack (talk) 06:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not proposing deletion, I am proposing redirecting to the section in the main article that has actual content. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have nominated the article for deletion without explicitly proposing a redirect - I'm not sure how we're supposed to read your mind. Hack (talk) 07:06, 27 November 2013 (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.