Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of road accidents 2010-2019


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

List of road accidents 2010-2019

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Empty list for obvious reasons. Lead was copied from List of road accidents 2000–2009 (so it would be easy to recreate later) but looks bizarre on an empty list, for example requesting additional citations and talking about "the prevalence of bus accidents in this list". Without the copied content it would be a WP:CSD (no content) candidate. Prod contested by creator on talk. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as nonsense. With all due respect to the creator, it is ridiculous to create an article about traffic accidents over the next nine years. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep because of the fact that 2010 is just under 3 months away, and it would be recreated later should it be deleted. Maybe add a preparation tag just like Wikinews does for news articles that have yet to happen, but have not happened yet. ConCompS (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's bad enough to hold a place in line for 2010, let alone the entire next decade. It won't last long if recreated in this form on January 1. Mandsford (talk) 01:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete, WP:CSD, "No Content". TJRC (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Empty list it can be recreated when it becomes useful after there is an accident to place in the list.  GB fan  talk 23:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--Karljoos (talk) 01:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete- did anyone think to try G3? This certainly could qualify, methinks. if not, blatant violation of WP:CRYSTAL, so delete. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The creator currently has 88531 article edits (lots of them spelling) and certainly looks constructive. I don't suspect bad faith. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No bad faith, the article is just not necessary now. > RUL3R >trolling >vandalism  03:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This can be recreated when there are significant accidents to write about in the coming decade. Warrah (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep 2010 is only two monthes away, and once deleted wiki won't allow it to be recreated. Tabletop (talk) 06:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yes, it can: see 2009-10 in English football. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  15:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Further comment - I can't actually find that debate now, but I did see one once. (It also came up when I recreated it.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  15:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The prohibition against recreating an article deleted as the result of an AFD is only if they are substantially the same article. If this article is recreated with appropriate accidents it will not be the same article that will be deleted here and it can be recreated.   GB fan  talk 01:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, deletion now will not prevent recreation. Creator may ask for userfication if desired. Mjroots (talk) 09:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete with no prejudice against recreation with a style and similar to List of rail accidents (2000–present) when there is content that can be added. Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Wp:CRYSTAL. For obvious reasons. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  15:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment – I have no strong opinion either way (both Delete and Keep are not a big deal one way or another), but I find the invocations of WP:CRYSTAL ludicrous. Come on people; road accidents are almost surely going to happen in the period 2010-2019, unless the world comes to an end before that. WP:CRYSTAL is meant for unverifiable speculation about what might happen but is not at all certain. --Lambiam 22:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL isn't such a crazy objection. As you point out, the most that someone can say is that road accidents are going to happen in the period 2010-2019, which is similar to having an article that says that there will be a U.S. presidential election in 2016.  When there really is nothing to say, the article is nothing more than a "placeholder", someone wanting to be first in line to write about the subject.  I'm still not sure why someone thought we needed to write about the news events of a decade that hasn't yet begun.  Mandsford (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But we do have an article United States presidential election, 2012, which is a lot farther away than 2010. We even have an article 2024 Summer Olympics. The objection that "there really is nothing to say" may be valid but is not covered by WP:CRYSTAL; the objection raised there is all about "unverifiable speculation", something this list proposed for deletion is not guilty of. --Lambiam 16:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Both of those articles have actual content. A list solely of future events inherently does not. TJRC (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, no content until 2010 at which point the article can be recreated. Someone jumped the gun here. --Triadian (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete You can recreate it when 2019 comes. Or if you want an article of just the year 2010, then create it when that year begins, preferably after the first road accident happens and you have something to put in it.   D r e a m Focus  08:45, 22 October 2009 (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.