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. Any renaming discussion can take place at the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United States at the 2012 Summer Olympics[edit]

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

The only content of this article is a statement that the US will compete at the event in question, and two external links. This article will certainly be worthy of inclusion in several months, but I don't see much point in including it now. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 17:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is close enough it is no "crystal ball" article. The event and the country's participation are clearly notable, and I expect coaches are being selected already. Athletes will soon be selected. Sponsorships and media coverage are going to be covered. We do not have to wait for the brink of the event. Edison (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about all the other articles in Category:Nations at the 2012 Summer Olympics? Lugnuts (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Edison, My reason for nomination was based on the article's Lack of content at time of nomination, not on WP:CRYSTAL, as the article did not include any speculation. I am not disputing the notability of the subject, I am merely asserting that, at the present time, there is not enough material to work with. I would also point out that in your argument, you state that you "expect coaches are being selected already. Athletes will soon be selected. Sponsorships and media coverage are going to be covered." Thats dancing pretty close to WP:CRYSTAL, IMO. Finally, while your assertions are reasonable, I don't see any sources in the article to back them up. @Lugnuts, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 19:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also @Lugnut, I looked at a few of the articles in that category, and IMO, they are just as bad as this one, as they lack sources, and meaningful content. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 19:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I looked at the one for Turkey, and it's an abortion of an article. Redirect all to the main 2012 article with the possible exceptions of Great Britain (I think they're hosting it, I'll have to check...) and the US one (more content than the others). Lugnuts (talk) 07:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I look at one of the article referred to Shooting at the 2012 Summer Olympics, there is certainly meaningful comment and references. there can be here also. When we know something will happen, that it will be notable, and that information will gradually accumulate, Wikipedia can only benefit, because there will be a place to put it. Many people will be able to add it who might to be willing to start an article. I challenge the nominator to say what harm this article can possibly do to the encyclopedia , or a user. DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What harm can this article cause? It can give the impression that we have low standards, specifically with respect to referencing. To me, this article is akin to an empty storefront in a newly constructed strip mall. seeing that empty storefront would make me think, wow, somebody just wasted several million dollars building a stripmall that no one wanted to occupy. See also meta:IMMEDIATISM. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 23:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Concur with well-put comments by DGG. Edison (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The US has qualified athletes in the shooting events. The standard for creating these articles for the 2010 olympics was that once a nation had qualified athletes (not named) they could have a page created for them. I think that is a pretty good standard. Aside Comment However, anyone have a source for the US naming these specific shooters to compete in the olympics. If so this is a weird occurrence as most nations only name the athletes a very short time before the games. I suspect maybe that these were the athletes that won the spots for the Olympics, but are not necessarily those who will be given those spots.Ravendrop (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename I don't think it is encyclopedic to see that the US has won 0 total medals in the 2012 Summer Olympics. If there is material that belongs here, it is for an article about pre-olympic events, an article or articles that will survive the actual Olympics in 2012. See also, WP:NOT#NEWS. Unscintillating (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is how WP:Olympics has set as naming and stylistic convention, even if it is about pre-Olympic preperation. Ravendrop (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I couldn't find any conventions at WP:Olympics. But I looked at United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics history. This 2008 edition of the article was created as a stub 30 December 2007 and not used until 13 May 2008. Unscintillating (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the 2012 Summer Olympics article. It can be unredirected and current content can be used when the time comes, probably early 2012 (or about a year from now). 64.229.101.119 (talk) 05:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly useful to inform people on what the USA are doing in preparation for the games. BUC (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, preparation. We should be able to agree that US preparations for the 2012 Olympics are notable. Propose rename to United States preparations for the 2012 Summer Olympics. Unscintillating (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't think that would work because once the games take place, this article should cover that as well. BUC (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, there are two issues here. 1) Is the article notable enough at this point in time and 2)What should it be titled if it is indeed notable. I think the second discussion should take place after the AfD has concluded (assuming it it kept, of course), in conjunction with the Olympic WikiProject. Lugnuts (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename because the title United States at the 2012 Summer Olympics is too indistinct for me. The article treats one sport: Shooting. I see a new title American preparation in sport shooting for the 2012 Summer Olympics with a link Shooting at the 2012 Summer Olympics. Good Luck Everybody, --Geneviève (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2011 (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.