Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eurovision Song Contest 2008


 * 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 of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 15:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Eurovision Song Contest 2008
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The contest venue and format have yet to be determined, so the bulk of the article is at this point speculative. —C.Fred (talk) 03:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I think even 2007's article is already pushing it. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 04:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- E ivindt@c 05:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons given by nominator. DVD+ R/W 05:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete There's not one confirmed fact in the article, it's entirely speculation. --DM Andy 06:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Author should try again when this actually exists. --Dakart 07:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Much too early and no info. At least wait till after ESC 2007, when we'll know the host country, finalists and semi-finalists. Jess Cully 08:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per my original prodding. I've no idea why this was removed from prod anyway; C.Fred said it was "ineligible" but I wasn't aware there was such a thing. — sjorford++ 08:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * From the looks of it your prod was the second prod placed on the article with the first being contested, contested prods should go to AfD rather than being re-prod-ed as has been done by C.Fred-- blue 520  09:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You're quite right, I should have spotted that myself. Apologies. — sjorford++ 09:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Come on guys one year at a time. Maybe we should have a policy that articles for future events can only typically exist for the next nearest event Ydam 10:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we don't know anything about it yet, why create it so early. --Ter e nce Ong 11:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.-- blue 520  12:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well i dont suppose this will count for much, but for what it's worth :keep. I think we should leave it there, it will develop over time and doesn't hurt anybody at the moment. THE KING 16:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, it does hurt someone if (s)he clicks Random article and jumps on it. --romanm (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, look at the Olympics there are articles till 2024. Hektor 21:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There is at least content in the 2024 Summer Olympics article, due to the bidding for the right to host it. The 2024 Olympics article is the logical place for that content; it will be historical content as contenders become also-rans. —C.Fred (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep -Barring any incidents, this will happen, but maybe keep it short. Arbiteroftruth 07:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * '''ESC 2007 is worthy of an article because it's being hammered out as we speak, this one's still completely incorporeal. --Agamemnon2 11:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with Agamemnon2, but perhaps not enough to put it all in bold. Peeper 14:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - there was a Eurovision Song Contest 2007 article before the Eurovision Song Contest 2006 even took place. Also, I agree with THE KING, as it is not hurting anyone, in my opinion. 13756 20:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Premature. I'm not a big fan of the 20-years-in-advance Olympics articles cited above, either, but at least with the 2024 games there is verifiable information. Other than "it's going to happen" there really isn't anything to verify on this one yet. 23skidoo 21:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I'm ok with an article on the one after the next one (on any such event), but anything beyond '08 should be deleted for now.  young  american  (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's going to happen anyways in the next few months. As long as it has already been created, there won't be a need to rehash this later. I also agree that anything past 2008 is pushing it. --Shuki 20:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, as no meaningful information is available yet. The info in this article assumes that the rules stay the same, which is not 100% certain. Rain74 15:25, 29 May 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.