Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Rugby League State of Origin series

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. Davewild (talk) 08:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Rugby League State of Origin series[edit]

Delete seems like pure OR & WP:CRYSTAL about a who may be eligible to play in a tournament next year. Carlossuarez46 06:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you read Rugby League State of Origin and the article itself, this series is always contested by the same two teams. It is not unreasonable, or original, to note that. Its a two-team series, played every year. It will be played next year by these two teams. This is not crystalballery, only noting a fact. Not all articles on future events are crystalballery. Many are, but this will be a real event, contested by the two teams noted in the article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I assume that Carlossuarez46 was referring to the players shown in the eligibility list, which other than the dates is the only content. It may not be OR but it isn't particularly useful at this stage. Why no list for the Cockroaches? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think that this is WP:OR or WP:CRYSTAL, but I think it is a bit premature to start the article this early. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 08:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 11:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the best thing to do with this article is userfy it until more than the mere dates are known. The topic is clearly notable but there isn't enough known at this stage to create a useful article. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It isn't OR though mostly what is currently on the page probably will not be there by the time Origin has finished it is semi useful, I had a look over it and noticed some teams that I thought would have more eligible players don't but anyway guys can be chosen so last minute to play in the teams there is always going to be that crystal bally feel. Firelement85 12:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We need sources to document the dates, but that's a minor thing. We also need information on the eligible lists (for both teams) - how would one become eligible? There's no inclusion criteria listed, and that needs to be there for context on those lists. This could be considered cleanup, I suppose, which is why I reserve my delete !vote - but, lists without inclusion criteria are deleted every day. I could Keep per WP:HEY with some work, which I might put in later if no one else does. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you look at the page Rugby League State of Origin under the selection section Under State of Origin rules players are selected for the state in which they first played senior (or registered) rugby league. Hence the 'State of Origin' meaning for the game, this is obvious to me but do people feel it needs to be repeated on the page itself? It is why players who first played in other states are ineligible to play. Firelement85 15:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and strip Article is clearly notable. Just strip it down to the bare bones. Twenty Years 16:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but I'm commenting out all the boilerplate.Ga rr ie 23:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's going to happen next year. However, while I think whether you qualify for a given state isn't going to change, there's no way of knowing who's going to be on the teams so stripping that bit out would probably be good.Red Fiona 23:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep in the bare-bones fashion that it is now. That it's going to happen is an incontrovertible fact, although it's only going to look like this until the early months of next year. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, already Yes it was premature of me to create the article six months out. Now it is stripped back to the now-known facts and the tables for future use are all hidden. So are we done now ? -Sticks66 14:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article doesn't seem to crystal bally in its current state. Lankiveil (talk) 06:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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.