Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biathlon World Championships 2015

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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biathlon World Championships 2015

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL. No significant information, other then the place. Can be move to userspace of author. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No information yet, so we have a WP:CRYSTAL case. Bzweebl (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is known that championships will be held in Kontiolahti, Finland (source - it is included in article). So I think that this article isn't CRYSTAL case. Oh yes, and it is notable :) And the number of races is known (ok, they are the same every year) --Edgars2007 (Talk/Contributions) 14:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply- This most certainly is a WP:CRYSTAL case. It states that "if preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." If you want to argue that location and number of races are well documented speculation, then go ahead, but if you have a reliable third-party source that has other notable speculation, I will consider changing my vote. Bzweebl (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per CRYSTAL - "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Lugnuts (talk) 10:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply- There is nothing notable about it yet as all we know is the location. For it to be notable it would have to pass WP:GNG, which it doesn't because there are no third party sources with significant information. Bzweebl (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - And how about now (changes)? --Edgars2007 (Talk/Contributions) 15:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets crystal in that it is a notable event that is certain to take place at a defined place at a defined time. There is nothing wrong with stubs. Ravendrop 23:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep Yaloe (talk) 06:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- It looks like I'm fighting a losing battle, but what exactly is notable about it? It certainly doesn't meet WP:GNG, which I would assume is the standard for defining notable, because its only "reliable sources" that are not "independent of the subject" appear to be about its existence, time, and location, which does not seem to be "significant coverage." As previously stated, "future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place," which I do not believe it is. Bzweebl (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the difference is in how you are reading notable in the sentence: "future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place,". The way that I read it, and the way I think it is being read by the other keep voters is that the event as a whole (in this case the Biathlon World Championships) and not the specific event (in this case the 2015 edition of said championships) are notable. So because the Biathlon World Championships are notable (which, I'm assuming you agree to based on your above arguments) every edition that has verifiable info as to where it is going to take place is thus deemed to be inherently notable. Additionally, the very fact that it has already won the right to host is proof in of itself that preperation for the event (and not just speculation) is already underway. These are major events, and they take years to plan and execute. I hope this help explains, at the very least mine, reasoning. Ravendrop 19:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply- I guess I am saying that I would read both the initial "events" and the word "event" as the Biathlon World Championships 2015, a position which I maintain, so we'll have to agree to disagree on that. However, I do have concern that although you state that we can assume preparation has begun for the event, the article neither indicates that nor brings any sources discussing any current preparation, although it may be true. Additionally, you did not express why the fact that "these are major events and they take years to plan and execute" is an argument for notability, and I was unable to decipher what policy this was based on so an explanation would be great. Thank you. Bzweebl (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A real dumb decision to nominate for deletion. Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 18:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you keep your PAs at home, please? Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable event and there is plenty information about it. No obvious reason for deletion. --GreenZeb (talk) 20:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply- Can you bring the information you're talking about to help the article please? Right now all the article has is the location and events with some sentences on the decision of the location, and the articles cited don't have much more, so it would be good if you brought some more sources. Bzweebl (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2012 (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.