Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney New Year's Eve 2008–09

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2019 December 8.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Consensus is that individual instances of New Year's celebrations in a single city do not merit their own article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney New Year's Eve 2008–09[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Are individual instances of this event notable? To me it feels more like fancruft and trivia. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — not notable. This even happens fairly regularly. Nothing worthwhile in article.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - what do you mean by "worthwhile"? Something that you like? If so, that's not a reason for deletion. Bookscale (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the event received notable coverage in the mainstream media (ie. more than trivial mentions), and is mentioned in reliable sources which are cited in the article. It does actually meet GNG. What's the issue? Bookscale (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Notability (events) this is routine coverage of an individual instance of an annual event. There is no doubt that the event itself as a whole is notable, but individual instances may not necessarily be. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except this particular instance (which is the only one nominated) did receive coverage which is cited in the article? Bookscale (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying the event did not receive coverage at all. I'm saying that nothing especially notable/out of the ordinary happened, and all of the sources covering this specific edition were just routine coverage of it either as an upcoming or completed event. In this situation, routine coverage is not a sufficient basis of a claim of notability. Any notable detail relevant to this particular edition, with citations, could be covered in a table/list of sorts on the article for Sydney New Year's Eve itself. I do not see any other New Year's Eve celebration, or fireworks show, have articles for individual editions like this. ViperSnake151 Talk 01:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — This is a difficult case because it did receive notable coverage, but there does not seem to be anything special about this year, over any other year, to deserve such notice. As Jack Upland says, there is nothing worthwhile in the article. --Bduke (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - except that "nothing worthwhile" is not Wikipedia policy supporting deletion. It's just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. What policy does it breach? Bookscale (talk) 11:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - What we meant by worthwhile is that there was nothing of significance in this specific edition of a routine celebration that makes it separately notable. ViperSnake151 Talk 02:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - This question was directed to Bduke (and Jack Upland, who hasn't bothered replying). Bookscale (talk) 10:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Outside of different fireworks theming and performers, generally NYE celebrations usually follow the same template every year; outside of millenium/turn of the century/national centennial celebrations, these usually shouldn't get callout with their own article. The main article already covers it well in summary form. Nate • (chatter) 08:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - but it has notable coverage supported by reliable sources, it actually meets GNG. Saying "There shouldn't be a separate article" is just saying that you don't like the fact that such an article exists. You need to explain why. Bookscale (talk) 11:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Didn't say IDLI at all anywhere there; just said we already have a summary of it in the main article. I would support it here but if we can summarize it in another article, then it's much easier to retain than this article. Nate • (chatter) 01:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - "we already have a summary" is not an argument for deletion. Bookscale (talk) 05:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to say Keep because no real argument of any merit has been put forward to justify deletion. At worst the page should be merged, not deleted. Bookscale (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This would have no traffic as a redirect (outside of professional sports seasons, we usually find historically very few "20xx-xy" redirects get any traction), and the 14th anniversary of anything usually doesn't merit much for a redirect. Nate • (chatter) 04:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - the article is sourced well and the sources can be used on the main article. It would be a waste to just delete the article. And there are other NYE pages as well. Bookscale (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - Classic WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The crux of my argument is that yes, there is no doubt Sydney New Year's Eve as an event franchise is notable, and other notable New Year's celebrations have articles. But they don't have individualized articles for each edition like it's a sporting event, since they are very routine and rigidly structured, and they often do not have enough variance to even have distinctive articles (any difference between editions, especially if it a specific tradition such as the bridge effects, can be easily covered in a relevant section of the parent article). The General Notability Guideline (GNG) is only a presumption of notability, and Events have their own specific notability criteria based on consensus. In particular, Notable events "usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle" and must receive "significant or in-depth coverage". It is clear based on other criteria that the event as an annual event meets the notability criteria. However, a specific instance of the event in a specific year does not, because it only receives coverage during the news cycle immediately around New Year's Eve, and this coverage only constitutes "routine" coverage that, alone, is not enough to justify an entirely separate article. It's like how television series often do not have articles for individual episodes unless they have been proven to be critically notable in their own right. ViperSnake151 Talk 17:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment - read GNG - "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". If it meets GNG (which it does), then it does not also need to meet the event page. The sources cited in the article are not routine. The page is notable enough. Your arguments are just pretence that you don't like the article and want to get rid of it, but there's no Wikipedia policy that the article infringes. Bookscale (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment' Once again, neither ViperSnake or I hate this article. It's a fine article if you're really interested in this topic...but that's why Wikia exists. Here, we're describing a run-of-the-mill edition of the ceremony, the fourteenth version. You take out the extraneous information about what song they didn't use (the layman doesn't know this extra information and doesn't care), a modified version of the other (ceremonies have cute entendre versions of songs to go with their shows all the time), and a play-by-play of the telecast and the soundtrack of what played during the fireworks (perfect for a Spotify playlist, not needed here), we don't have a full-length article here. Unless there was some kind of tragic incident, the aftermath section of everyone leaving and going home literally happens after every ceremony in the history of humanity.

I repeat again, this is a paragraph or two of information we need, at most. It is covered in perfect, short and clear detail in Sydney New Year's Eve#2007–09. This entire series of articles needs to go as it is of interest to only a select few people, and is all easily summarized in a number of paragraphs of prose and tables in the main article. This is my last comment here, because you are getting annoyed about something nobody else is. Step back and stop taking every delete vote! as some kind of personal attack against fireworks in Sydney. Nate • (chatter) 00:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not taking this as a personal attack, and I don't care about the article one way or the other, I'm just tired of AfD after AfD which are just articles a particular editor doesn't like, with some poorly-thought out reason to try to justify it. If you think that the article should be merged, that's not a reason for deleting the article, and none of the editors who have posted here have really put forward anything justifying why the article should be deleted. At worst, the consensus is to merge the content into the above article, but that should never have been put forward as an AfD if that was the case. Bookscale (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2019 (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.