Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Australian Open

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 both. Note: No keeps cited relevant policy/guideline/precedent. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Australian Open

No information on a page and little information available yet through a Google search. As this is still a year away and not much is known yet other than the dates and locations, suggest any information here could only be WP:CRYSTAL. Redfarmer (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no verifiable information can be found yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the dates and ___location? Nick mallory (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: --Kanabekobaton (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What's your reason for keep? This is not a democratic vote. You must actually give a reason for your opinion. Redfarmer (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the user who created the article and voted "keep" without a reason seems to have added a second article to the AfD. I have no problem keeping this here as it does appear it should be deleted along with the other. Redfarmer (talk) 02:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that the dates are known already is enough isn't it? As the 2008 competition is already underway, this is the next one. It's hardly 'crystal' to say the Australian Open is going to happen next year. Nick mallory (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was crystal to say the event would happen next year. What would be crystal at this point is any other information on it. If other information besides the dates could be provided without speculation and OR, it would qualify for its own article. As it is, this is just a placeholder. Redfarmer (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable annual event, dates have been announced. Fosnez (talk) 07:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But nothing else is known. How does that qualify for its own article? Redfarmer (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, information is at a minimum but people will appreciate it. This is not ridiculous, it's just next year's event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yohan euan o4 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation is not a criteria for keeping an article. Redfarmer (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 08:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has there been an official announcement of the dates and ___location? (reasonable assumptions aside) --Melburnian (talk) 08:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate the article when there's actually something to write about. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Otto4711 (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exceedingly weak delete. Technically, there really isn't enough for an article to be written about this. That said, in a tad under 2 weeks, there'll be champions from this year who can be entered as defending champions and so forth. At that point, there'll probably be just enough to warrant an article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. I wouldn't have created an article for this at this stage but given that someone has, it seems like a waste of time to delete info now only to recreate in a few months time. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: From WP:CRYSTAL:

Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include 2010 U.S. Senate elections, and 2016 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2020 U.S. presidential election and 2040 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. Predicted line-ups of sporting teams on a week-by-week basis or in future events are inherently unverifiable and speculative. A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified. Morgan Wick (talk) 02:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Much more certain to happen than the 2016 Olympics. And the Wimbledon article does include significant information about changes for the 2009 tournament.

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.