Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The International 2016


 * 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. Not a snowball's chance otherwise. Also a note that ESPN and PC Gamer are indeed reliable sources. czar 18:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The International 2016

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:CRYSTAL - Hasn't happened yet, and is duplication of material (pre-tournament info from The International) sourced to a non-RS source. Pre-tournament info always goes in the The International in its year section. The International 2015 (and previous separate articles) focus specifically on the tournament in August. There's no RS coverage, obviously, because it hasn't happened yet. MSJapan (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The WP you posted literally has nothing to do with this article, this is an upcoming event and all of the things written in the article have been verified, there's no "foretelling" going around, Wikipedia doesn't only have events that happened or are happening, it also has upcoming events, and this one is coming up VERY VERY soon, and as a matter of fact the open qualifiers are taking place as we speak. Kabahaly (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I vote to keep, as the article does have third party coverage on it already (1, 2, 3) (the qualifiers are just wrapping up). The article will be eventually recreated in a few weeks anyway, so why not simply improve the page? We have articles for Super Bowls that won't happen until 2021, so why don't they get deleted too? ~ Dissident93  (talk)  05:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The article you claim it duplicates has none of the information and appears to be a disambiguation page. There is reliably sourced information about a tournament that is very soon. Enough already with the WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Smartyllama (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: This is for an upcoming, massive sports tournament that will be active very soon, so let's keep it. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 03:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep As noted, with the tourney now about 1 month away, RS pre-event coverage has already started. Even without that but knowing previous events were covered sufficiently after their conclusion, there's reasonably expectation at this point that nothing will prevent this event from occurring and the same type of post-event coverage would happen, so its also reasonable to keep for that reason. (In contrast, if this was January 2016, I would question the need for the article at that time). --M ASEM (t) 19:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't mean there can't be articles about upcoming events, it says we can't speculate about them. The 2020 Summer Olympics are also upcoming, and those are four years away. The notability of this event has been established, so there's no reason to delete the article. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The event has sufficient coverage to merit keeping it, a few examples of sources reporting on it; . As mentioned, CRYSTAL does not always apply to thing that haven't happened yet, as long as there is enough reliable coverage that doesn't require speculation, it's free to stay. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2016 (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.