Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008-09 NHL season


 * 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 2008-09 NHL and 2008-09 EHCL season, delete the others, taking into account that the one source at 2008-09 OHL season isn't really about the season, but about a special event. Tikiwont (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

2008-09 NHL season

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

There is nothing currently that would be able to be written about these future seasons as anything that would happen to affect them this year would be included on the 2007-08 season pages. A number of individual team seasons for 2008-09 recent fell to afd for the same reason. Big case of WP:Crystal can be recreated after the Stanley Cup finals are done which marks the end of 2007-08. (Or that particular leagues championships for the other two leagues I have nominated.) Djsasso (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they too would have the same WP:Crystal issues.:


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions.   —Djsasso (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I wouldn't call the location of the next All-Star Game "unverifiable speculation". Even the reason why the game is being held there is provided. Citations for that are easy to get, but that in itself, is not a reason to delete the article. These are maintenance issues that require a tag that the article does not reference any sources. Incidentally, the ECHL article has been tagged since November 2006, which means it has existed since November 2006. Deleting it now would be incredibly stupid, because it will have to be created again shortly anyway. Nom also missed the fact that there are the 2009-10 and 2010-11 NHL season pages, as well as 2009, 2010, and 2011 in sports.  Those should be deleted first before any of the three articles nominated are even up for AfD. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I didn't get those ones because those ones were not brought up in the discussion that occured at WP:HOCKEY. However, I will add them on now. 2009 in sports and 2010 in sports are different because they are talking about events that will be happening in those years. These pages are for statistics/trades that happen during the season. As for the location of the next all star game that can and is covered in its own article. Nevermind the fact that your arguement is based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -Djsasso (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a bad essay to use in a deletion discussion. Pointing out other articles for consistency is a good argument and cannot be dismissed just by invoking a shortcut. Torc2 (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment When the only point of most of their arguement is that others articles of its type exist that I missed nominating then I think it is pretty valid. -Djsasso (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment No, the point of their argument is that articles about future years in sports that include real-world information such as dates and locations of major event. 2009 in sports is a fine article even though it's almost a year away.  2008-09 NHL season is no different, just slightly smaller, but more detailed. Torc2 (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Placeholders of this kind are completely unnecessary. If a template exists, it's very easy to recreate them once the seasons actually get closer. Redfarmer (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep for the first, third and fourth articles. All have verifiable real world information.  The fact that these will occur in the future is irrelevant (that's why we have tags saying that); there is no speculation, which means WP:CRYSTAL does not apply.  The second and fifth articles do not have sufficient real world information and can be deleted. Torc2 (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually if you look at point number one of WP:Crystal it does apply. If nothing major can be written about the topic then it is not a valid article. Other than to say the season is happening nothing major can be written about the seasons. And as mentioned before the only real content of the one article with the all star game is already covered on an individual all star game article. -Djsasso (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Point #1 doesn't even remotely say that."'Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include 2010 U.S. Senate elections, and 2016 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2020 U.S. presidential election and 2040 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. Predicted line-ups of sporting teams on a week-by-week basis or in future events are inherently unverifiable and speculative. A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified.'"What in that is violated by this article? If anything, point #1 endorses this article. Torc2 (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment By comparison, the 2020 U.S. presidential election and 2040 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. I believe they would fall into this example. All that can be said about it is that it will happen. -Djsasso (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - "The NHL All-Star Game will be held as the Montreal Canadiens host the event at Bell Centre in February, 2009, to celebrate the Canadiens' 100th Anniversary." It's verifiable.  It's not original research.  It's not anything like the 2040 Summer Olympics.  It's similar to 2016 Summer Olympics. Torc2 (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, and until the 2008-09 season is actually here that statement is better suited on 57th National Hockey League All-Star Game. Which leaves this as a redundant and unnecessary place holder as anything other than that won't be applicable until the season is actually here. -Djsasso (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I've just added the bit about all teams playing eachother again at least once every season, which already negates your argument. It's obvious you made no attempts to improve the page, which is a pre-requisite to AfD. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Season pages are used to list statistics and transactions which will not become available until the season begins so there wasn't really much that I could improve. -Djsasso (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Only statistics and transactions? I don't think you even looked at this season's page. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Where did I say only? That being said almost everything on that page is a statistic (a record is a statistic) or a transaction or a listing of events happening this season that is in progress. Any league business that happens right now would fall on that season page not on the one up for deletion so you can't write about league business in this article either yet. -Djsasso (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm aware that season articles have a lot of info about stats/trades, but you saying there shouldn't be an article because those things haven't happened yet implies that they are only about that. And they aren't. You can't write about league business happening now, but you can write about how it will affect the season, whether changes will be implemented, etc. It just hasn't been done yet. That's what editing, not AfD, is for. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't have a problem with 2008-09 NHL season being expanded to a resonable article if there is stuff to write about, however based on the last few afds wiping out next season articles for individual teams it looks like to me that most of the hockey project felt there was nothing that could be written about. However, for the seasons further out than next year, I think its rediculous to keep those. -Djsasso (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, the 2009-10 season is already notable for stopping play in February for the Olympics and not having an All-Star Game. That is some relevant, encyclopedic information. 2010-11 should be deleted however, because that's just too far off to anything about it. I support keeping the ECHL one too, but for OHL I couldn't care either way. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all all but the 2010-11 NHL season. There is already verifiable information in these articles.  Even if for some reason the seasons do not occur, there would be information about the canceled season, such as occurs with the 2004-05 NHL season article.  Nothing is gained by deleting the articles.  -- JamesTeterenko (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Updated opinion. I have refined my support to not include the 2010-11 NHL season.  There is no evidence that planning for this season has started.  So, as per WP:CRYSTAL, it should go.  -- JamesTeterenko (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * General-Comment I'm not sure what this Afd will decide (I'll respect its choice), but there's no 100% certainty the NHL will continue to exist after this season. I know it most likely will, but let's wait. At least wait until after the 2008 NHL entry draft (if it's held). GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Under that logic, we shouldn't have an article like this because there's no "100% chance" that the events will happen. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The threshold for inclusion under WP:CRYSTAL is "almost certain to take place", not absolute certainty. The policy even allows for limited, documented speculation about preparation for the season. Torc2 (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, I thought deletion would be a foregone conclusion, guess I was wrong. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - the creation of these articles is premature. The seasons are likely to take place (if the world does not end), but what will happedn is mere speculation.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep 2008-09 NHL and ECHL season pages, delete the rest. In the case of the NHL, there is sufficient information about what is scheduled to take place.  The ECHL article refers to franchises that have been awarded.  It's hardly premature to write about what the front office and the owners have plans.  Folks, surely you don't think they wait until after the Stanley Cup is awarded before they plan for the next season, do you? Mandsford (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep 2008-09 NHL Season and 2008-09 EHCL, not the others If there are valid reliable sources of information on the upcoming season, that's ok by me. Just the valid info, nothing else. It's only a matter of months away. E.g. announcements of outdoor games, special games, location of all-star games. I disagree with the inclusion of "the season will start in October and finish in April." Pointless. The following years articles are not useful. Alaney2k (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I see no point in the empty sections either. Comment them out for now. Alaney2k (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep 2008-09 NHL Season and 2008-09 EHCL: And delete the rest. Too early for everything else, but the next NHL seasons is fast approaching.  Wouldn't keep the OHL /ECHL upcoming season because there really isn't enough information at this point.  -- Rjd0060 (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment How is there not enough information in the ECHL article? There's already quite a bit, and there has been since November 2006. Deleting it now is pointless when it has been there for so long and will soon have to be created again. --Pwnage8 (talk) 01:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right! Thanks for pointing that out.  Somehow I overlooked the article, not quite sure how maybe too many firefox tabs .  I would say keep the 08-09  NHL and ECHL articles, but after looking at them all (again) I still say delete the OHL one.  - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete it is all speculation until it happens. An obvious example would be in the 2008-09 NHL season article, which states that Ottawa and Pittsburgh will play in Prague. Nothing has been confirmed of that, and a simple search shows nothing but rumours. A simple search on Google not only shows no actual reports, but also provides more rumours of other teams, namely the Rangers and Tampa Bay, playing, with Stockholm also listed as a proposed venue. There is no basis for any of these articles. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I've deleted the offending sentence. The rest of the information is verifiable.  Articles aren't deleted for one bad sentence.  -- JamesTeterenko (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Regardless, I still stand by my vote. When the time comes, we can create these articles. In respect to the offending statment I mentioned, it was more of an annoyance just to see it written once again, after I had deleted it a few days ago. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you still stand by your vote now as the NHL games to be played in Prague and Stockholm has been confirmed, and is properly referenced with verifiable sources? (→ Zachary ) 04:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * comment - Two key statements in the article have been sourced. Torc2 (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added a reference in the OHL season article that the All-star game will be played in Windsor.  So, it does appear to fit #1 of CRYSTAL, since it is almost certain to take place and planning is clearly already taking place.  -- JamesTeterenko (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems odd to me that the complaints are against articles related to hockey leagues but not against leagues of other sports. NorthernThunder (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Well thats simply because I work on hockey articles and not on articles of other sports. If I were to work on all sports I probably would never get off the computer. And this nom was just the result of a discussion at the hockey project to put up such hockey articles. That being said I would put any league of any sport up that was far out in the future. -Djsasso (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the 2008-2009 articles, delete the other ones. The next season is certainly not that far in the future, so that it's not much crystalballing. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all things like this are planned several years in advance, and talked about several years even before that.DGG (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep 2008-09 NHL season as the only one with any meaningful, referenced information within it, and delete the rest. They can always be recreated later when there's actually something to say about them. Terraxos (talk) 03:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep 2008-09 NHL season since there is much that can be written about it, for example that it will open in Stockholm and Prague. --Krm500 (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep 2008-09 Articles You may be thinking that 2008-09 is too far in the future, but it is currently 2008. That means this is happening this year. And it's already collecting a lot of buzz (about the NHL season at least), with the games being played in Stockholm and Prague. And these are sourced properly. (→ Zachary ) 04:24, 27 January 2008 (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.