Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commonwealth Games Village 2010

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth Games Village 2010

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

A merger was previously proposed, although no actions were taken. I reviewed the two articles involved in the merger, and the AfD's contents are about the same as the one in the other article. Hence the proposed deletion now.

The inherent problem with the nominated article is that it does not appear to meet notability guidelines, and no articles dealing only with an event's accomodation venue has ever been created prior to this. As mentioned in the above paragraph, Venues of the 2010 Commonwealth Games takes care of the Commonwealth Games Village already. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 04:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm not sure what problem we're trying to solve here. I don't see anything major wrong with the article. It's better structured and better written than most of the other Commonwealth Games articles (although it needs a few tiny fixes, but that would be easy). I was never comfortable with the proposal to merge it with the "Venues" article. In my version of English, the village isn't a venue. I appreciate that it might be for others, but I'm giving you my perspective. As for it being a first, it's a good model, and Games cities always make a fuss about their wonderful village. It's the one part of any Games that is guaranteed to have some sort of productive, ongoing use. HiLo48 (talk) 05:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the grounds of notability. Please see this, this and this and tell me if the article meets the guidelines there. Actually the article structure is almost identical to the one followed in the official site. I've yet to check for actual copyvio. HiLo48, I've already given you the dictionary definitions; I appreciate your personal definition, but I'd rather follow the official one here. Sometimes, I get my intuitions about language ands stuff wrong as well. IMHO, I will be hardpressed getting these articles to GA or even FA. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 06:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to meet those subject notability guidelines if it meets the general notability guidelines. ErikHaugen (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the requested move indicated at Talk:Commonwealth Games Village 2010 is still open. It is somewhat premature to expect a merge while a poll, where the merge suggestion was broached, is still open. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's closed now. ErikHaugen (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support - I don't believe this is notable enough at present, particularly as we don't have articles for any of the various Olympic villages over the years. However, as pointed out above we should await the closure of the move request, which may result in a merge anyway. — Amakuru (talk) 06:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- It is not true to say that we do not have articles for the Olympic Villages. Please see Category:Olympic Villages.Shyamsunder (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I can't see any problems right now. And it is an important current event article --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 12:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as above. Shyamsunder (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC) .[reply]
- This nomination does not meet any of the speedy keep guidelines. What's the point you're trying to make? Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 10:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or merge. I still think merging is best here. However as it stands it's little more than a poorly-written fork. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 10:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a worthless travesty that would have more value as an honest redlink. This article lists a few unimportant facts about the village, then fails to address the elephant in the room: the concerns before the games about completion on time and sanitation. If an article this bad and this mealy-mouthed about addressing the real issue is the best we can do, then it's time we wound up the project and went home. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Be bold and fix it! This is not a reason to delete. ErikHaugen (talk) 08:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep World media is given lots of attention/coverage to this village due to lots of reason. I think which is sufficient to establish notability and keep the article. KuwarOnline ^Talk 06:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:EVENT suggests this probably passes; consider the bbc articles on the page and [1], [2], they are not hard to find. I suppose merging might be ok. ErikHaugen (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to reiterate at this point, if you don't mind, that Venues of the 2010 Commonwealth Games takes good care of the Commonwealth Games Village already; including its issues and concerns. I would think if Commonwealth Games Village were to reach GA or even FA, the article proper would mainly contain the concerns and controversies over the Village and not its actual functioning. Perhaps a merger can be considered. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 14:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but in this case, its actually the problems not the lay-out that is notable, and should be emphasized. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it seems notable to me, and just requires better sourcing, which is clearly out there. Functioning and controversy should both be covered. No compelling reason to delete has been given. (I'm .a little surprised there aren't more games village articles). VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:35, 20 October 2010 (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.