Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future years in music

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 of the debate was delete all articles. Mailer Diablo 00:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2009, 2008, 2010 and 2012 in music[edit]

I think there are only four right now: 2009 in music, 2008 in music, 2010 in music and 2012 in music. At the moment, all these are a list of people who will be eligible for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in that year, so I think they should be deleted because Wikipedia is WP:NOT a crystal ball, so stuff that hasn't happened shouldn't be covered except in extremely unusual cases, which certainly doesn't apply here. Hundreds of performers will become eligible in those years, if not thousands or millions (theoretically), so I don't know why these particular performers are being pointed out, and I don't see any point to adding more. Tuf-Kat 02:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I'm pretty sure these articles aren't even accurate. A performer is eligible 25 years after the first recording, not album. The Violent Femmes will therefore be eligible in 2007, not 2008; Weird Al may have become eligible in 2001 or 2004, but in any case, will have been eligible for some time by 2008. Cyndi Lauper became eligible last year, and David Lee Roth has been eligible for some time. The Smiths will be eligible in 2008, not 2010. Anyway, even if all these were fixed, I'd still think they should be deleted. Tuf-Kat 02:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And now I feel compelled to point out that even if we assume these articles are correct and that only albums count in determining eligibility, Faith No More will not be eligible until 2010, not 2008, and the Butthole Surfers in 2009, not 2008 (assuming EPs are not counted as albums). Tuf-Kat 07:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...red link? Royboy crashfan 02:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental link -- this is a group nomination of all years in music past 2006. Tuf-Kat 02:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 02:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom DrIdiot 02:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic. BTW, a group nomination title should include the titles of each of the nominees in the group. Royboycrashfan 02:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Tuf-Kat 02:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not exactly crystal ballish if accurate, but I'm not seeing the use of these articles or how they can be expanded without becoming a crystal ball. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 02:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Mike _{(T C)} 02:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Furthermore, becoming eligible for the Hall of Fame does not a year in music make, nor are the lists complete (and they're arguably POV, since there has been editorial selection in deciding who is listed and who isn't). --kingboyk 02:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per crystal ballism. Cyde Weys 04:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a crystal ball. (aeropagitica) 07:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per nom --Iffy★Chat -- 07:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - TRDriver 09:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Crystal balling. And I don't even think the list of RRHOF candidates warrants merging with the HOF's article. 23skidoo 19:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yep, boot it. Nigelthefish 13:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not per the crystal ball standard. These should be deleted as a result of disputed accuracy as per above and because they can not be effectively expanded. Years of eligibility for the Hall of Fame could certainly be included in pages on individual musicians, though and perhaps some master list could be compiled, but it would be difficult to decide who to include. Cool3 19:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to inherent POV as to who is included and who is not; as for artists' eligibility dates assuming that they are fixed it is not crystalballism any more than 2008 Summer Olympics is, gonna AfD that one? thought not. Carlossuarez46 18:53, 2 March 2006 (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.