Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 in Canada
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Delete --Bubba hotep 19:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 2010 in Canada
I am not the nominator. The nomination was not completed before and I have merely finished the nomination process. Sarcha 45 is the original nominator. Luke! 16:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, as nominator. Has almost the exact content of the article 2010, the intro being identical. The remaining information could easily be added to 2010 with no need for this useless article. Like someone below said, wait until 2009. — Sarcha 45 05:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete for now and wait until the year 2010 actually rolls around. Why are we even discussing this? -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 18:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- "For a reason, or just because you said so? BigHaz" Mkdwtalk 09:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- See WP:CRYSTAL, and per Bearcat's excellent insight as usual. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 22:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- "For a reason, or just because you said so? BigHaz" Mkdwtalk 09:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete, I believe we already have an article about 2010, why do we need one about this year in a specific country (especially seeing that it isn't even 2010 yet). Tim.bounceback(talk | contribs | ubxen) 18:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Delete per Bearcat. Tim.bounceback(talk | contribs | ubxen) 21:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)- Since right now the only things we know about 2010 in Canada are the Vancouver Winter Olympics and some municipal elections, delete without prejudice against recreation in 2010 or late 2009. Bearcat 19:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Every article starts somewhere. If someone makes a contribution to a stub and that stub is deleted. Then the next user with a piece of information will create the same stub and it'll be deleted again. Or... as paraphrased on the mandate of Wikipedia, its a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedia of which will ultimately never be complete due to continous addition. Take a look at the Portal:Current events. Each month starts off blank and on the first day an addition is made to it. Do we delete it because it only has one piece of information? Do we delete all stubs? Perhaps these should be questions we ask ourselves before deciding to delete something that will obviously be contributed to in the future. Mkdwtalk 09:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep DXRAW 03:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- For a reason, or just because you said so? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NOT. You cannot delete an article with out cause and so far the only argument is that this article is about the future and that its a stub. Firstly, you don't delete stubs that meet Wikipedia:Notability, to which this article does, and you don't delete future articles for the sake that they are about the future. Examples include: 2010, 2010 in India, 2010 in sports, 2010 in rail transport and the full list Special:Allpages/2010. Other such stub articles about the future are 2040s and 4th millennium. I would say this article has a WP:SNOW chance of being deleted on the basis that 'it hasn't come yet'. Again, Wikipedia is not a democracy. It has its policies. Every article somewhere and its obvious this one will grow. Mkdwtalk 07:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- For the sake of clarity, note that 2010 in India is in fact a redirect to the article on the Commonwealth Games of that year, which is slightly a different kettle of fish than just a straight-out article on that year in that country. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- In honesty, I don't think you could truly call them a different 'kettle of fish'. One is about a future event in a calendrical year, the other is about a future calendrical year in a country. I see a profound similiarity. It would be like calling the Portal:Chemistry and completely different 'kettle of fish' and asking for different criteria for the Portal:Physics. Their topic may be different, but if you say one cannot exist, then all the articles about a future event should be deleted upon your argument. Mkdwtalk 08:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's a false analogy. My point is that there is in fact no article called "2010 in India". Type it in or follow the link and you'll end up somewhere different to where that article title would otherwise take you. You'll be in a related place, for sure, and it may well be that the only significant event currently programmed for 2010 in India is the Games, but you can't claim that "there's an article called '2010 in India' so we should keep an article called '2010 in Canada'". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- 2008 in India, 2008 in New Zealand, etc. etc. So far I haven't seen a single point brought up as to why this article fails Wikipedia's policy which is the point of this forum. All the other votes have simply been of a personal opinion which are immediately elminated for the fact that future articles do exist (User:Royalguard11), and that stubs are stubs (User:Bearcat) Mkdwtalk 09:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough, there are more articles which do this particular sort of thing. However, two quick points. Firstly, 2008 is significantly closer than 2010, so such material as can be added is likely (at least in theory) to be more easily sourced than it would be for an article about 2010. Secondly, the fact that there are articles (many of which look in pretty terrible condition to me on first pass) which do this is not a good reason that a specific exemplar thereof should stay. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Its lack of proximity to the present is not grounds for it to be deleted. If it were, then I don't see how that would be an advantagous policy in the spirit of knowledge as it seems shortsighted and articles such as 2025 would not exist. Also, the fact that an article is difficult to contribute to or source should also not be grounds for its deletion. Could you imagine? Many articles are in need of expansion of wikification: Category:All pages needing to be wikified, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types, etc. etc. It has useful information, it can be expanded, it will be expanded, and I don't think we should give up on it because we think it doesn't look complete, pretty, or hard to contribute to. Mkdwtalk 09:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that it should be deleted because it's difficult to expand or source. What I'm saying is that because it's difficult to expand or source at this particular point in time (the better part of 3 years before Canada experiences 2010), it will run a greater risk of being used as a crystal ball than will an article on a point closer to us in time. The argument is thus that the articles on "2008 in X" are not quite on all fours with this particular article, although they're close. Regarding the lack of wikification etc, with respect I think that's a potential red herring. My point is that the existence of other articles talking about likely events in a given country in the future is not a reason to keep any specific article talking about likely events in a given country in the future. Neither is it a reason to delete it, by any means, but this isn't the clear-cut WP:SNOW case you were originally advocating, I'm sure you'll agree. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Its lack of proximity to the present is not grounds for it to be deleted. If it were, then I don't see how that would be an advantagous policy in the spirit of knowledge as it seems shortsighted and articles such as 2025 would not exist. Also, the fact that an article is difficult to contribute to or source should also not be grounds for its deletion. Could you imagine? Many articles are in need of expansion of wikification: Category:All pages needing to be wikified, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types, etc. etc. It has useful information, it can be expanded, it will be expanded, and I don't think we should give up on it because we think it doesn't look complete, pretty, or hard to contribute to. Mkdwtalk 09:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough, there are more articles which do this particular sort of thing. However, two quick points. Firstly, 2008 is significantly closer than 2010, so such material as can be added is likely (at least in theory) to be more easily sourced than it would be for an article about 2010. Secondly, the fact that there are articles (many of which look in pretty terrible condition to me on first pass) which do this is not a good reason that a specific exemplar thereof should stay. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- 2008 in India, 2008 in New Zealand, etc. etc. So far I haven't seen a single point brought up as to why this article fails Wikipedia's policy which is the point of this forum. All the other votes have simply been of a personal opinion which are immediately elminated for the fact that future articles do exist (User:Royalguard11), and that stubs are stubs (User:Bearcat) Mkdwtalk 09:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's a false analogy. My point is that there is in fact no article called "2010 in India". Type it in or follow the link and you'll end up somewhere different to where that article title would otherwise take you. You'll be in a related place, for sure, and it may well be that the only significant event currently programmed for 2010 in India is the Games, but you can't claim that "there's an article called '2010 in India' so we should keep an article called '2010 in Canada'". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- In honesty, I don't think you could truly call them a different 'kettle of fish'. One is about a future event in a calendrical year, the other is about a future calendrical year in a country. I see a profound similiarity. It would be like calling the Portal:Chemistry and completely different 'kettle of fish' and asking for different criteria for the Portal:Physics. Their topic may be different, but if you say one cannot exist, then all the articles about a future event should be deleted upon your argument. Mkdwtalk 08:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- For the sake of clarity, note that 2010 in India is in fact a redirect to the article on the Commonwealth Games of that year, which is slightly a different kettle of fish than just a straight-out article on that year in that country. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as premature. 23skidoo 20:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please elaborate since articles such as 2010 and even 2040s and 4th millennium. So if its a matter of proximity then you cannot say this article should be deleted and another 2,000+ articles about future events beyond 2010 can be kept. Again I say, this article meets all of Wikipedia's policies and criteria for notability. This process is not about people thinking one way or another with their own personal opinions, but to judge articles for or against the fact that it has either failed Wikipedia policy or not. Mkdwtalk 06:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- For starters, neither 2008 in Canada nor 2009 in Canada exists yet. For another, while there are enough things already known about 2010 in general to justify an article, as of right now all we know about 2010 in Canada is that there'll be an Olympics, a fact which is already covered by the article 2010 Winter Olympics, and a couple of elections. Beyond that, the article otherwise consists of a list of conventions scheduled by non-notable organizations. "National Realtors Association Executive Institute"? "CMS Summer 2010 Meeting"? Why on earth would or should Wikipedia care? It's not that this should never exist; it's just that there's no particularly compelling reason for it to exist now. It'll certainly be valid in the fall of 2008 or early 2009, but there simply isn't sufficient encyclopedic content for it yet. You know you're on shaky ground when you have to list real estate agency conventions just to break ten items, you know? Bearcat 21:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- 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.
