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 keep Flowerparty■ 02:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and this contains no information about this future Olympics beyond year and game number. If this is enough, every Olympics that will ever be held would have its own "article" just because we can count forward into infinity. Whee. Until there is actual documented planning and bidding, this should not exist. Postdlf 20:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm retracting my delete vote in light of the expansion of the article. I still tend to think it's still insufficient, but I'm simply indifferent now. Postdlf 18:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 21:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, per nom. -- Vary | Talk 21:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too far in the future, too little information known. If we're eleven years away from knowing where they are, I don't see having the article. NickelShoe 21:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Summer Olympic Games. --Revolución hablar ver 22:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JJay. --Revolución hablar ver 01:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is absolutely no reason to delete this given that 2024 is part of the speculation and planning among potential bidders. When I see phrases like: Lamour said France would not bid for the Summer Games before the 2024 Olympics but said a Winter Olympic bid at a nearer date might be considered [1]- I know we need the article. If that is crystal ballism, then perhaps we should have a group nom here for all future sporting events, i.e. 2020 Summer Olympics, 2016 Summer Olympics, Football World Cup 2010 etc. -- JJay 22:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see your point, but there's no such information in the article...I reviewed the 2020 Olympics, and it actually had information in it. So I wouldn't vote against it. If somebody put some information into the article, that might be different. NickelShoe 23:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep True, but that doesn't mean that the 2024 article can't have such information in it. Wikipedia isn't really in the spirit of deleting articles because they aren't good enough. Why not keep it as a stub, to encourage anyone with relevant information to put it there? I acknowledge that there must be some sort of limitation (as one could apply to same reasoning to justify the 2876 Olympics), but 2024 isn't all that far off. ~ Booyabazooka
      • Comment There is no need to keep the article just incase some information becomes available. When it does the article can be recreated. A deletion is not always a forever decision. Ansell 00:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This limit should be 20 years into the future in my opinion. --Revolución hablar ver 01:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if merely wild speculation. Non-existent articles can be created when they're needed. Deletion does not preclude recreating when there is information to add (e.g. as soon as there is some official or at least verifiable announcement that a city is at least considering a bid). Average Earthman 23:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• How about Philadelphia...[2]...or Copenhagen [3] -- JJay 00:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom Ansell 00:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand per JJay. --Rory096 00:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per JJay and changes in the article. NickelShoe 00:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Nice job to whoever just added the info on Australia. It's bizarre but a lot of cities are thinking about this already. -- JJay 00:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I just took it from 2020's article, since it applied to both. Olympics are planned very far in advance, so even though it may seem really far away to us, some people are already thinking about it. --Rory096 00:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is absolutely nothing beyond a single case of wishful thinking in this article. Other than stating the obvious, the article does nothing to inform potential readers. Howzabout we leave this until, say, 2020, at which point it might actually be relevant? Denni ☯ 01:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You obviously forgot that Olympic bids are decided seven years in advance, and the date at which the Olympic bid for 2024 would be decided would be 2017. (e.g. London 2012 was decided in 2005). --Revolución hablar ver 01:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment those opposing this article ignore the fact that there are articles 2287 and 2401 that won't be updated in centuries. Why are those allowed to exist and this not? Surely, this is more deserving of an article. --Revolución hablar ver 02:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You keep talking like that and those articles will end up here. I don't see the point in finding one article that hasn't been deleted as a defense for another. NickelShoe 02:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether or not they end up on AFD I don't care. I am merely showing that there are articles which won't be updated for CENTURIES, so why delete this?! --Revolución hablar ver 18:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think those are distinguishable, as one documents a rather ironclad astronomical prediction, in contrast to speculation about human or governmental intentions or hopes. Even when that speculation has been expressed in a verifiable source, I don't think it's substantial enough on which to base anything more than a news article, because its importance is far too ephemeral. Once the bids actually occur, who was maybe thinking about bidding at some point is too irrelevant to be documented in an encyclopedia. The other future year article, while a little crufty, still documents unchanging facts about what works of fiction have depicted about occurring in that year. I still think both of those are of little value, however, so I'd err on the side of deleting those as well if there is a genuine issue of inconsistency with this decision. Postdlf 18:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I said they wouldn't be updated for centuries, I never doubted the importance of the topic (astronomical events). My point is, many people here seem to be using that same reason (won't be updated for years) to justify deletion. --Revolución hablar ver 19:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Postdlf. android79 14:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, crystal ball. Ned Wilbury 15:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. Above account created today. User's 12th edit. -- JJay 17:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — The world will have come to an end well before then. ;-) — RJH 17:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is this a serious vote? --Rory096 23:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't look like one to me. --Revolución hablar ver 23:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the article now has 2 cities listed as bidders for the host city. My opinion is that Olympics articles should be limited to 20 years in the future. The Olympics are an international event, and while an article for an event 18 years into the future may seem ridiculous to some, the notability (and now the content) of the article instead should convince them to vote keep. --Revolución hablar ver 18:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 2020 or 2024 will be the next Games in Europe and are on the mind of a lot of major cities there.Hektor 13:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per the nominator: the article is now about documented planning and bid consideration, and it should be kept. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I see nothing wrong with this article. Inventm 02:29, 9 March 2006 (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.