Talk:2022 Winter Olympics dragging incident

China Low‑importance

	China portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Netherlands

This redirect falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands

Olympics Low‑importance

	Olympic Games portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merger Proposal per WP:NOTNEWS

I am proposing this article be merged into Concerns_and_controversies_at_the_2022_Winter_Olympics#Sjoerd_den_Daas_incident per WP:NOTNEWS. This incident has not received much significant coverage since it happened and, unless there are other similar incidents, will not have lasting significance. The coverage is from news articles in the immediate aftermath. The most appropriate place for this is the main Olympic concerns and controversies page. Vladimir.copic (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Event is insignificant. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 15:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the way I don't support the PRC, as might be evident per my usertag. However, I do believe that the event is far too insignificant, and other similar incidents do not have individual pages. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 15:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it might be more preferable to create a Wikipedia article for Sjoerd den Daas than a single controversy he took part in. However I'm not sure how notable he is for a page. Dunutubble (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dunutubble: Am I right in thinking that you agree that this incident is not significant enough (per NOTNEWS) to have its own article? Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vladimir.copic - Possibly; most likely. Dunutubble (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update I now realise it would be more appropriate to merge with Concerns_and_controversies_at_the_2022_Winter_Olympics#Sjoerd_den_Daas_incident and have updated as appropriate. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not so sure I support the move, I see it being barely notable but over the line. @Vladimir.copic: can you clarify the proposed target of the move? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back: I'm currently in the middle of actually doing the move as a week later no one had voiced opposition. I'm moving this to Concerns_and_controversies_at_the_2022_Winter_Olympics#Sjoerd_den_Daas_incident. In reality it was only two sentences that were missing as the incident is already covered on that page. If you have an issue with it's notability for the concerns and controversies article, you can discuss it there. Vladimir.copic (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah screw it then, carry on. In theory post challenge we need to revert back to status quo and do it properly but that sounds like work that neither of us really need to do. If there is significant coverage in the future someone can just break it back out. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I thought this was easier than an AfD as it seemed like a NOTNEWS issue to me here. All this information is also covered in the main article so we are not losing anything. The article can always be brought back to life if this becomes a bigger incident or if similar incidents happen/become known. Vladimir.copic (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]