Talk:Bids for the 2036 Summer Olympics

Discussion copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation [1]

I am not really asking for advice, but am reporting on what I have done and what may happen. This draft was submitted and declined twice as being too soon. It has a long history of creation and deletion, but is a lot closer to reality than a decade ago. This is a case where I would rather let the community make the decision if there is disagreement, rather than have the more stubborn editor "win". The consensus process that is "least unsuitable" is AFD. I have declined the draft again, but have said that if they want to let the community decide, I am willing to accept it so that AFD can run. I am guessing that there is a less-than-50% of surviving AFD, but I think that this is a case where the submitter should be allowed to decide that they are ready for AFD.

I think that this may be the right way to handle some other contentious submissions where the notability is not about to change within the next one or two months. (On unreleased films and unreleased albums, I am willing to keep on declining until the work is released.)

Thoughts? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

we shouldn't try to prevent the community from making the decision. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

User:DGG - Do you mean that we should let the community make the decision via AFD, and that we should accept the draft and see how it fares in article space? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with DGG. I don't do a lot of AfC work, but when I do, I go by the "Reviewing workflow" at WP:AFCR. As far as I can tell, this draft passes that, or at least comes close. It's certainly more encyclopedic than a lot of the crud that comes out of AfC. As you noted, if AFD doesn't like it, they can say so. There's certainly precedent for articles about events far in the future. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

User:RoySmith - That is in the human far future, but that is an astronomical event, and astronomers have better crystal balls than the rest of us, and their crystal balls got even better in the 1950s. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

With the preceding one just announced/assigned, 2032 Summer Olympics, there will be sure interest in 2036 Summer Olympics, and this interest will only increase. I think it belongs in mainspace. I am sure it could pass WP:STUB. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Olympics are planned many years in advance. Even the competition for a site is notable, and covered by multiple articles in the general and special press. This is, after all, only two Olympics after the present one, which is not the far future. Far future would be 2076. Even if the games are never held due to war or pestilence or the total collapse of human society, the decision not to holdl them will be written about and notable. In any case, it's not our role to decide. It has I would guess between a 50 to 79% chance of being accepted at AfD, and that's enough reason. I am going to accept it. I'm not a great fan of our overcoverage of sports ,but if we should cover it at all, we should include this.. DGG ( talk ) 08:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Even the 2032 Summer Olympics page was created in 2017, which was by far 15 years away from 2032. If we look at the 2036 Summer Olympics today then that is also 15 years away. In other words, I think that it perfectly makes sense to keep the page as it will be a great page for Wikipedia and for Olympic fans as well. It will also act as a great informational page as well. Yellow alligator (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the point of this article, what does it inform us? Answer: that something will probably happen and dozen locations where it might happen. That is not conveying anything useful. Is there some exception for Olympics where future speculation is allowed, any other article written like this would be deleted with reference to crystal balls and "too soon". CT55555 (talk) 15:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

2025 or 2029??

Please explain why 2025 or 2029 is possible as the date of the host city confirmation but 2027 is not. Georgia guy (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

If Egypt wins?

Egypt should host these games. If that happens, the Summer Olympics would have been held in every populated continent. Nate-Dawg921 (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Sources

Why are there so many potential bids without any kind of source? Take Austria/Liechtenstein for example. There is not a single piece of information about this to be found on the internet. I live in Austria and Liechtenstein is just a few miles away from here. If something big like hosting the summer olympics would be up for discussion, there would have been at a considerable amount of media coverage, not only from local media but also in the whole of Austria.

I think all Potenial bids without source should be removed from the article, until they are confirmed. Florian100100 (talk) 07:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, there are usually many unsourced edits that just add random bids. Any information which is added without proper sources is usually removed. (talk)

Reason for deletion

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2034 Winter Olympics. No country has even announced a bid. It’s WP:TOOSOON for an article. 160.72.80.50 (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Done ~ GB fan 12:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Timeline for the interval between now and the host city's confirmation date??

Now that 5 bids are known, can anyone add a timeline to this article?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Ordering the bids

Initially they were ordered by likeliness, but someone re-ordered them alphabetically. Any opinions?? (I want answers from at least 5 Wikipedians.) Georgia guy (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

They weren't even actually alphabetized. I reverted as the city for India is not official. No matter what, I feel the locations that are considered stakeholders should be higher than those that are not. If alphabetized, I feel the country is what we should be going by, not the city. The country / Olympic committee is the important part, not the city. So, my opinion would be sort by status first, then by country (alphabetized). Chris1834 Talk 16:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)