Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament


 * 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. No Guru 15:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

2008 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament and 2009 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament
I do not see how a sporting event to be held two years into the future deserves a page. The future sport template is all very well, but this is ridiculous. Viridae Talk 02:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep 2008 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament - all of the venues for the 2008 tournament have already been selected, and are listed on the official web site. (scroll down to the "FUTURE SITES 2008" section). Thus, WP:NOT does not apply on this particular article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral on 2009 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament as I have not yet found information to verify the venues for the 2009 tournament. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, crystalballcruft. I have been bold and aded the 2009 tournament.  2010 and 2011 are already PRODded.  User:Zoe|(talk) 02:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You beat me to it - I was in the process of listing it. I prodded these (and the 2008 and 2009 womens ones) and the other ones still prodded. Viridae Talk 02:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Prods removed with comment. See below. --DarkAudit 02:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * All now nominated for deletion. Viridae Talk 02:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Sites for this tournament and others through 2011 are already selected. Crystalballism does not apply. --DarkAudit 02:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all per 2012 Summer Olympics or 2016 Summer Olympics. Rather than being "ridiculous", the planning for major future sporting events is of interest to most sports fans, is frequently covered in the press and should be included here. --JJay 02:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all crystalballcruft, including the aforementioned 2012 Summer Olympics or 2016 Summer Olympics. Crabapplecove 02:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly there is verifiable and relevent information available for this event. Maxamegalon2000 02:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete too far in the future to keep objectivly informant, at least for an article. Somerset219 03:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep since venues have been selected. SliceNYC 03:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Keep, much information is available and there are pages about future Olympics per JJay. -- Jared Hunt July 29, 2006, 06:40 (UTC)
 * Keep both and stubify, there is known information here, and these events aren't that far in the future (unlike, say, the 2030 FIFA World Cup). --Core des at talk. ^_^ 07:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all sites selected/verified Nate 10:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is likely to be of interest to sports fans, and contains verifiable content about what has presumably already been arranged. Two years is not very far ahead for organising a major event, so it is hardly speculative. Jll 16:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: In 2007 college basketball will turn professional.  You don't believe me?  Why not?  Oh, right: it's a prediction!  That's why we don't have articles about things that don't exist: they're predictions, no matter how likely.  Geogre 17:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That is not true. We have many, many articles on future events. This is entirely appropriate and WP:Not even states: Examples of appropriate topics include 2008 U.S. presidential election, and 2012 Summer Olympics. --JJay 18:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's wrong to say that. An article on a future event like the 2008 election should and could only be about current campaigning for it (which is in-the-news and therefore not appropriate) or a line saying, "We in the US plan to have one" (which is empty).  Otherwise, we ask authors to decide for themselves the difference between sure-things and possibles, and the youngster can swear that a mention on aint-it-cool-news.com of a Rug Rats IV movie is sufficient for a full article.  Geogre 20:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I was merely pointing out that we have hundreds if not thousands of articles on the issues surrounding future events. The topic is authorized by policy. You are certainly entitled to want to delete these articles. But your original statement regarding "predictions" was misleading. --JJay 20:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to pick a fight, and I'm sorry if I seemed belligerant. I won't make appeals to "I remember when we used to delete all these things" or anything like that, and I do bow to precedent when it's strong enough, but I think this one was wrongheaded.  We can't blame authors for violating the crystal ball stricture when we allow so many things like this.  I'm more absolutist than others, I suppose, but I'm just one "vote."  Geogre 01:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Having the venues set is not a prediction. It is verifiable fact. --DarkAudit 01:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * NOt to be picky, but it is still a prediction. It amounts to an agreement, and it is very likely to be honored, but there were events scheduled for spring of 2006 in the Superdome, too.  Geogre 01:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * By that argument, the entire notion of 'future sporting events' should be null and void as crystalballism. The Giants have an agreement to play the Pirates tomorrow afternoon, but who's to say what may happen in the intervening hours beforehand? --DarkAudit 03:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep This is fine to have, no reason to get rid of it--venues set. rootology 18:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep we have 2008 Olympics, don't we? Carlossuarez46 21:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not a good example... there's a lot of controversy around China's politics with regards to the event, and it's the next Olympic event. The NCAA tournament hasn't generated that much controversy (and it's not the next NCAA championship).  --ColourBurst 22:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as substantial information about venues already exists. Vickser 22:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is a useful article with factual details about a notable event. Roswell native 14:39, 31 July 2006 (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.