Deletion of 2006 Winter Olympics highlights

Comment: per nom. Each medal is a highlight for someone, so by being selective in listing these without a judicious amount of sourcing that influential commentators believe such and such an event is a highlight, the article fundamentally violates . Commentators in each English-speaking nation will have its own different perspective on the highlights, and will result in |overt cultural bias against non-English-speaking nations
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NPOV)

Comment: per comments made on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics.  I have been working on Olympics articles since day one of becoming a user, and have written thousands of them.  I have yet to see '''any''' compelling reason for presenting Olympic results on a per-day basis.  We already have a main article for each Games (2006 Winter Olympics, and in good summary style, we have per-sport articles (e.g. Alpine skiing at the 2006 Winter Olympics) and per-nation articles (e.g. Norway at the 2006 Winter Olympics), and even per-event articles when the per-sport articles would be too big (e.g. Alpine skiing at the 2006 Winter Olympics - Men's downhill).  Do we ''really'' need yet another, redundant, way of browsing this content?  This article was originally created around the time of those Games, so I would say it is a case of ecentism.  As a long time and prolific editor for the Olympics WikiProject, I can say that every 2 or 4 years we get a huge boatload of new editors coming along to work on Olympic articles, with lots of good-faith ideas of what more they can add, but then they move on to the next flavor of the month after the Games conclude.  This article is a great example of that.  Is there really any ''long-term historical perspective'' to be gained from a per-day organization of material that is already present on the per-sport and/or per-nation articles, or on the main article itself?  I don't think so
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Redirect (WP:R)

Comment: Nominated purely out of spite of being taunted on the nomination of the same user's nomination of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Summer Olympics highlights|Summer Olympics highlights. "Not encyclopedic", "possible NPOV violations" and "not consistent with MOS" are |reasons to cleanup, not delete
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Be bold (WP:SOFIXIT)

Comment: deciding what is and is not a highlight inherently violates 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: The only way that a list of 'highlights' for an olympiad can emerge is via , and as such is not material that is eligible for inclusion in wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: If people actually want this deleted, why hasn't anyone made any reference to ''why''. The nomination is just , the initial rationale was refused in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Summer Olympics highlights|the previous discussion, and no new rationale has been presented. The arguments for deletion are simply attempts to refute the arguments for keeping, and AfD defaults to keep. So, anyone want to make a list of reasons for deletion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: I was going to agree with the deletion nomination based on the name alone, then I actually looked at the article and realised it's basically acceptable - it provides a cut-down list of the major events and records from the 2006 Olympics. While all the information here ''is'' available elsewhere, this seems like a useful way of presenting it. I would urge a rename, though; as argued above, 'highlights' has implications of |original research. I would support the title suggested on the talk page: 'Chronological summary of the 2006 Winter Olympics
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: this is  by its very nature. If there is any useful and NPOV content, this should be introduced to the main article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)