Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Summer Paralympics (2nd nomination)

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 Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Summer Paralympics[edit]

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

Violates WP:CRYSTAL KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 17:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The WP:CRYSTAL page specifically gives the 2020 Olympic Games as a article that does not violate the policy, with that in mind, I don't see how the 2016 Paralympics don't qualify too. - Akamad (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, WP:CRYSTAL. Let's examine what it says

"only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place", "speculation about it must be well documented". Well, we meet both those criteria here. And even if the event did not take place in the end, then we'd still have an article about it - we have articles about the 1940 Summer Olympics and 1944 Summer Olympics, after all. It's not clear why 2016 Summer Olympics wasn't nominated alongside this? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS obviously applies, but is that just the nominator neglecting to nominate that yet, or is it they judge the Summer Olympics to meet the threshold but not the Paralympics? Morwen - Talk 18:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CRYSTAL - and the nom should actually read this policy next time. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This does not violate WP:CRYSTAL, and it should certainly be kept, as the event will take place, and they even used another future Olympic Games as an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eire102 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' WP:CRYSTAL aside, how far in the future can you go? Is that spelled out somewhere? I mean, would it be OK if I create an article for the 2096 Summer Paralympics? §FreeRangeFrog 22:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, a lower bound is Andromeda–Milky Way collision, currently scheduled for 4 billion years from now. More seriously, we have Olympics all the way up to 2028 Summer Olympics, which seems marginal but not unreasonable. Morwen - Talk 23:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If bidding has started for the 2096 Games, then create the article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm inclined to think the extrapolation of WP:CRYSTAL is probably a matter of applying some WP:COMMONSENSE. I think it would be reasonable to work on the basis that the 2016 Paralympics (given that it is being organised so ongoing coverage of the organisation is likely, if nothing else) is probably okay but the 2036 Paralympics might (just might!) be considered crystal ball gazing (given we don't even know where it will be). We don't have a version of "Hammer Time!" for events but if we did it would almost certainly apply. In this instance, not so much. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CRYSTAL. This event has had significant coverage. --J36miles (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Corn cheese (talk) 01:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2012 (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.