Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Bowl XLIX


 * 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. Black Kite 01:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Super Bowl XLIX

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is based on a bid from Kansas City to host this super bowl, which was later withdrawn. (Also, are they really planning on naming it XLIX? Either that kcchiefs.com source is horribly wrong or the NFL is making utter mockery of Roman numerals.) This info may be worth a one- or two-sentence mention in a later article, but this article has no foundation. Grand master  ka  04:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yeah, XLIX is the standard Roman notation for 49, even preferred to IL (which is also valid). But since we do not have a host city, there should not be an article. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 04:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The game would be played in February, 2015, which is still seven years away. We just got done with #42, so I think it's safe to delete #49 at this time. Mandsford (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Per above. Calvin 1998   Talk   Contribs  07:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Based on XLIX being 49 and the above comments, it appears to be a crystal-ball. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per Mandsford's comments and above. AMR D euce  ( talk ) 12:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as crystal balling and as noted, the current article is about a big "never mind" anyway. When the 2015 SB article is eventually written, the fact KC considered a bid can be mentioned, but there's no need to peg a full article on this right now. 23skidoo (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Since the host city is being debated, I think it should be kept. All the Chiefs need to do is add a roof that links to Kaufman Stadium and it should happen. HP Jo ker  Leave me a message 23:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It should be kept. It's worthy of an article.  It's also not crystal balling, because verified, sourced information is available on the subject.  The article does not say that Kansas City might hold the Super Bowl; it says that they withdrew from the process of holding that Super Bowl.  Because an article will exist eventually on this topic, there is no need to delete it.  Should it be on the Super Bowl template?  No.  But should the article exist?  Yes.  —Son (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it would be held in the future, but right now all we could write about is speculation and such, which is crystal balling] Delete Secret account 00:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What speculation? That Kansas City attempted to go for the game and then backed out?  That's not speculation - that's what happened.  Anything beyond that IS speculation.  --Son (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the only confirmed fact, almost everything else would be speculation, as for the KC, it should be mentioned when the article gets recreated in the future, WP:NOT Secret account 22:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is definitely not a WP:NOT violation! The fact that you're saying that it should be mentioned when the article gets recreated is reason enough to keep the article - if it's worth mentioning when the article is recreated, then it's worth keeping in the encyclopedia now.  --Son (talk) 06:28, 8 February 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.