Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

2026

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Contested PROD. Article is based on speculations. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. --> Gggh  talk/contribs 21:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, per WP:CRYSTAL, Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place - the event is clearly notable and is certain to take place. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The year itself is not a notable event. The article is merely a list of conjectural trivia. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. All years are notable surely? The articles for future years are bound to be somewhat speculative, but as long as they are sourced and are on the lines "...X event is scheduled to happen on Y date..." then its fine as far as I can tell. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would argue that it is not a discrete event... only a period of time in which events can take place. Maybe I'm thinking too much about it. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. 16 years into the future is essentially pure speculation (I'd equate it as "future history" example). "In fiction" section is trivial. By the same token, the 2020+ year articles should be deleted as well.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Why is this particular year singled out?SPNic (talk) 00:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:GNG as a nomination that is apparently making some kind of WP:POINT about Articles for deletion/2026 FIFA World Cup and Articles for deletion/2026 FIFA Wolrd Cup (sic), though I don't know what point. We have articles AND TEMPLATES through 2059, 2110s, and 40th century, and we tap out at 11th millennium and beyond. (Did you know the Crypt of Civilization will be unsealed on 28 May 8113?) Who could forget the haunting refrains from "There Will Come Soft Rains", where all the computers are chiming out about 4 August 2026, that are seared into our collective consciousness like a silhouette on a wall? Oh wait, wrong forum. Look, I did some work on the set of articles such as 10 zeptometres, which is an article that happens to list ZERO elements and is still sustainable as a placeholder and part of a set. Basically, this large future-event article set is a long-supported and rarely-challenged function of WP's larger scope and 2026 has significant mention in numerous reliable sources. JJB 00:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:CRYSTAL, part of an established series.  Lugnuts  (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep well established type of article. It is hardly speculative that the year will be 100 years after the birth of Queen Elizabeth, and pretty certain that the 23rd FIFA World Cup will take place. And that other things have been predicted in that year is not speculative either, though the events themselves may be.    DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep As DGG notes, this type of article is well established in Wikipedia. The article established on 7 March 2002 didn't have much to say to begin with, but quickly grew, long before that year arrived.  God forbid that we start having a popularity contest over which years in the past or years yet to come deserve an article.  Mandsford 23:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perfectly good and useful article (and part of a series). Conjectural? I'm willing to bet that the 100th anniversary of Her Majesty's birth will indeed occur in this year. You can call that conjecture if you like. And the other events are either similarly likely, or are notable and referenced conjectures (or are references to fiction). I don't see why it was even necessary to nominate a good article such as this. Herostratus (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2010 (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.